Any truth to the rumor that Saddam has managed to install himself as a dictator in one of the hottest regions of his new homeland (in HELL) and has asked his new best friend, the Devil, to reserve a furnace room under his command for each his old friends, Dick, George, Carl and the gang? Who’da ever thunk they’d all meet up one more time?  I think he wants his pistol back too.

My goodness. E.J. is being too kind to the “W”

Those Repubs who still stand behind the president do not do so out of any real depth of understanding of the Iraqi situation. It’s sheer blind loyalty to the President and above all else, politics. The only way for Bush to save face is continue to be petulant and stand his ground. Otherwise, if he were to concede to a timetable, he admits how disastrous a mistake he made when he approved the invasion of Iraq. Bush will never do that (if he did it would surprise the “heck” out of me!). Bush stands his ground and those republicans who don’t want to look like idiots for having supported “W” also stand their ground (even though they still do look like idiots). It’s pathetic.

Those darn democrats! Bush refuses continued funding for his war! Oh, that’s right, it was the democrats who lied about the reasons to invade Iraq, sacrificed more than 3,000 of our young people and allowed more than 30,000 more to be injured - ruined in effect at least 30-50,000 US families. And killed or let more than 100,000 Iraqis be killed - and twice that injured? Those darn democrats. And they lowered the taxes on the wealthy so that poor people could pay for the war? Those darn democrats!

The war is going to end, the troops are at the end of their deployments and the war cannot be won without a massive amount of troops which the US does not have and I wonder if and when the draft is next.

M Currey

George Bush is holding our troops hostage in Iraq. The ransom he demands from the American people is enough money to secure the oil fields long enough to divide them among his friends.
Someone better send out for pizza and cigarettes before he kills them all.

The new “surge of blame” will have those insurgent Dems on the run. How dare anyone question the wit and wisdom of Bu$h Inc. No sense changing a failed strategy now, although no one has yet to define just what the hell the strategy was in the first place other than lets make lots and lots of money for my friends. For more insight into the Bu$hChen strategy I suggest watching old episodes of Pinky and the Brain. They obviously did when they planned this debacle.

these people are liars,,what else do liars do?,,,,, think about it.————(hint)——blame others for their misfortunes,,turn things around,,make excuses, ,,first lie more ,when caught in a lie lie again,,,just like a bunch of kids

ydmkamoi  dmhikouk http://tyayatti.com pbqumebu zdmvojdo abfrfarr

“But, but, but….CLINTON! Hildebeast! algore!”

The neo-con’s answer to everything.

The Democrats really have to take a stand on cutting the war funding.  That’s the only method they really have to stop the war.  Getting out of Iraq is probably the most important thing they can do right now.  They will just have to take the political “risk” in order to accomplish this, just like those who cut funding for the Vietnam war.  I remember they got a lot of criticism at that time, but it was something that had to be done.  Knowing that the American people are backing them should at least be of some assistance.

I personally think that we should bring our troops back to the US and let Iraq work everything out for themselves. Who are we to try to control them and change the way they live? Hell, we can’t even control our own country. All the problems we have here at home and Bush wants to send our people to help another country. This war has gone on long enough and it should be stopped. There are too many of OUR people dying over there, for what?

Would Bush feel the same if he had a parent, sibling, or close friend over there? Probably not. If it is such a big deal to him, why doesn’t HE go over there and do something about it himself instead of sending innocent people over there to die. I oppose the war. We are making no progress, and even if we were, we aren’t getting anything out of it.

Who is this “we” that has successfully stolen the Iraqui oil, and how do you measure “success”? I don’t feel very successful every time I have to dig into my pocket to buy 5 gallons of gas.Which democrat has pounded the stump for REAL mass transit in this country? And why shouldn’t we blame the Democrats? Aside from Dennis Kucinich, who’s calling for the impeachment of Fighter Pilot Bush or Deferment Dick? Which democrat has called for the repeal of the odious “Patriot Act”? Which democrat is agitating for more rigid controls on banks,credit card companies and Wall Street crooks? Where’s the pressure to amend the Bankruptcy Act back to it’s 1978 intentions? Which democrat has demanded a good look at all the destructive legislation passed by the republican congress since 1994?People like Nader,Kucinich and Barney Frank may not be warm and fuzzy, but they’ve been a damn sight more honest than the career beltway politicians supposedly representing the democrat party.

Hm. Either it’s my European cynism, or you people don’t get it

In my eyes, this “timeline” squabble is simply over who gets to admit defeat.

The Bush camp has said that any timetable whatsoever is admitting defeat, so they can’t admit anything. Add to that their pathological inability to admit any fault, and be it a speeding ticket.

The Democrats, on the other hand, know bloody well that they can’t sustain the occupation - or the gulags. Either they throw the baton in Iraq or the USA admit they’re broke. Not a nice choice for them, especially as they’ll need to eat a lot of the crow the rest of the world serves them.

This funny little bill is a clever move by the Democrats, nothing else. If Bush vetoes it, the Republicans are blamed for starving the troops, bancrupting the country and the Democrats get a better standing in the world (“we would have ended it sooner, but…now you bail us out”). If he doesn’t veto, they get the acclaim for being the ones who ended the war on Iraq, brought the “troops home” (can you see some military votes going their way?) and get a positive standing in the world (“look, we knew it was wrong and we did what we could, now you bail us out”).

I just sent the following email to Mr. Dionne:

    Sir, while I agree entirely with your piece on Truthdig today, I am saddened by the fact that you and your colleagues have fallen into the rhetorical minefield sown by the Republicans.  This is an argument that, no matter what happens on the ground in Iraq, is a win-win for the Republicans.  If we achieve “victory” the Republicans will claim credit.  If we are “defeated” the Democrats will get the blame.  This clash between the political parties should rightfully take place over whether the invasion and subsequent destruction of Iraq is morally, ethically, and legally right or wrong.  Until you manage to instill deep in the American psyche the manifest wrongness of this war you will be whistling into the wind.

A reasoned approach to the hysteria on both sides. When the President first threatened this invasion I did not know Bush was lying. I did not know what Saddam had or did not have. I did know that wars that are this easy to start, will be impossible to end.
This has come to pass. As a veteran, I grow despondent over the chest thumping of the pro-war politicians and pundits and the intractability of the fiercey anti-war left.
But really what is the answer? Hillary and the Dems get hammered for being Hawks when all they are saying is that we can’t just walk away. And there is no question this nation has invested more than human lives in this ill fated adventure. Is it about a mideast tactical position? Is it about terror? Is it about oil? Well, they are all the same thing and the answers are yes, yes, yes.
So Bush can’t admit defeat. Many American conservatives can’t. Progressives insıst on timely withdrawl and tear their best candidates to shreds. While Iraqis and US troops die.

Mr Dionne I have heard terms like the generals on the ground ,micro manage the war and the like.What country am I living in.As I recall from the history books we have civilian leadership of the military.Boy was Harry Truman misinformed when he fired Macarthur.What was General Petraeus elected to did I miss something?When one group of civilian leadership the Executive is so confused it is almost comical then another group the legislative must take over.I have not read the Constitution recently but I am almost sure that it does not say whatever the generals on the ground say.We would still be in Viet Nam I do not think that Westmoreland was ready to leave when the Legislative branch stepped in.Micro manage by the Legislative would have to be better than macro manage by the Executive.Bush is spouting nonesense we are always lisening to the Generals on the ground be they Casey or Abizaid or Petraeus and look at the situation.I think we ought to have a 1400 year timeline.That is how long these two factions have been fighting.Lets give them another 1400 years to work out their differences as long as the generals on the ground agree.The only way the democrats can lose this confrontation with the President is if they back down.People will assune that its the same old pussy democratic party with no stomach for a fight.If you are not going to fight with 70% of the American people on your side when do you think would be a good time to fight?

I agree completely: petulance isn’t working. But petulance is all they have. It’s so bizarre to see powerful middle-aged men being so childish.