Posted on 09/25/2007 9:20:24 PM PDT by SmithL
Washington - -- What is wrong with this picture: Two-thirds of the country oppose the Iraq war, but Democrats again are proving unable to achieve their promised "new direction, and President Bush is certain to keep the maximum possible number of U.S. forces in Iraq for the remainder of his presidency.
Iraq is making the Vietnam quagmire look like a sandbox.
Facing votes on another $200 billion in war spending and poll numbers that have sunk below Bush's, Democrats readily admit that voters are furious with them. The reason they can't end the war, they say, is that they don't have the votes.
Democrats lack the 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster on just about any measure to force a change in Bush's Iraq strategy, much less the two-thirds majorities in both the Senate and the House to override a presidential veto.
"The American people are very frustrated and are being very vocal about this," said Rep. Barbara Lee, an anti-war Oakland Democrat who has never voted for any funding for the war. "People need to understand where problem lies."
"We're a legislative body, and therefore we follow certain rules and procedures that have been set," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. " People don't like to hear this, but it is the real world in which we function. To close debate on anything requires 60 votes. We have 50 votes on Iraq."
True enough. Starting a war is much easier than ending one. There are other reasons the war drags on - and might continue, possibly for years, even if a Democrat wins the White House in November 2008.
The leading Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, steadfastly refused as recently as last Sunday's round of talk shows to promise that all U.S. forces...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
"It's 2008 and We Still Have No Plan -- Except, Bush Bad, Food Good"
I couldn’t get past the first two sentences without fighting the urge to vomit.
57,000 Americans died in Vietnam. Didn't you study history, Sweetie?
Oh, PLEASE! I know that (as a famous man has said) history began the day Carolyn Lochhead was born, but she must have been born yesterday to make such an ignorant statement. Look at the casualties over the same time period, the amount of money spent (as a percentage of the GNP), and the duration of the conflicts (four and one half years in Iraq, vice 10+ years in Vietnam), and tell me that the "quagmire" in Iraq bears a resemblance to Vietnam.
Iraq is making the Vietnam quagmire look like a sandbox.
Oh please! That’s one of the stupidest statements I’ve seen today.
You begin with a lie - THAT is what is wrong with this picture, Carolyn.
“Even if Democrats win White House, troops likely to remain in Iraq”
Perhaps so, but will they get the national support they need?
And they will do story after story on our troops bravery and hard work, on Iraqi citizens in their shops and homes, Iraqi soldiers and their hard fighting.
It will take a good 6 months of pro-American reporting, then they will take a poll.
And everything will finally be peachy!
More importantly, imagine you're a soldier deployed and a surrender-crat cheats his/her way into the WH with the assistance of a swooning Tired Old Media.
Would YOU be inspired to fight with Ears, Screech, or Hair as the Commander-in-Chief?
Let’s say we do pull out, and Iraq is engulfed in civil war, a six figure number dies... what do we say then?
Well, some of it is real. Their base legitimately hates it.
I’ve seen no signs they are willing to start bombing buildings yet though. They seem softer and less in intensity then their radical counterparts during ‘Nam. As long as that remains the case, the Dems would probably see the war through. Basically their best shot to end it is with an unpopular Republican President in office. And they’ve thus far... failed.
Well, some of it is real. Their base legitimately hates it.
I’ve seen no signs they are willing to start bombing buildings yet though. They seem softer and less in intensity then their radical counterparts during ‘Nam. As long as that remains the case, the Dems would probably see the war through. Basically their best shot to end it is with an unpopular Republican President in office. And they’ve thus far... failed.
The problem the Dems have, they know they really can’t just walk out without disaster, no matter what they say. If Nutjob gets nukes, the little conflict we have going on is going to look like a playground fight in comparison.
Vietnam was not the center of the world’s energy supply. As Rush says, the Dems own this defeat. They’ve painted themselves into a corner. Bush had a talk with Hillary this week. She knows she can’t just “bring the troops home”. That kind of mess even the MSM can’t cover.
I feel this antiwar movement is different. I think it is almost a religion, replacing Christianity for a generation raised without faith. It’s all tied up with the environmental thing. George Bush is Satan and socialism is heaven. They are motivated more by hate than by fear.
The sad thing is, it's a false religion. They'll never find happiness in it, just more anger, and they are just setting themselves up for more and more disappointment.
I feel this antiwar movement is different. I think it is almost a religion, replacing Christianity for a generation raised without faith. It’s all tied up with the environmental thing. George Bush is Satan and socialism is heaven. They are motivated more by hate than by fear.
The sad thing is, it's a false religion. They'll never find happiness in it, just more anger, and they are just setting themselves up for more and more disappointment.
Agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.