House has just approved Iraq War Withdrawal Timetable

[DownWithTheLeft]

Good, the only Republicans who should be tried for treason are Hagel and Smith.

I know I'm going to regret asking - what are the ground you see for Hagel and Smith being tried for treason? Please keep it within the realm of the law - if you can.

I meant in the terms of to the Republicans and the American people, not necessarily legally

[nlm]

Good, the only Republicans who should be tried for treason are Hagel and Smith.

I know I'm going to regret asking - what are the ground you see for Hagel and Smith being tried for treason? Please keep it within the realm of the law - if you can.

I meant in the terms of to the Republicans and the American people, not necessarily legally

I don't understand - what terms are those?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

BAD move (R) - but Bush will veto it and won't get overrulled.

It's a first step to defunding the war or forcing Bush to change course in a meaningful way.

Sure Bush will veto it. But what happens next? A veto will not get him his money. All Congress has to do to defund the surge is not send him a bill - he can not veto them not sending him a bill - so the stage is set for a negotiation. There is plenty to come on this - and the next few steps in this process will determine if it was a good move or a bad move for Congress.

I think the public/pro-troop Americans (most) will discourage that and it'll hurt the Dems, not help them - especially w/ the independents/undecideds.

[nlm]

BAD move (R) - but Bush will veto it and won't get overrulled.

It's a first step to defunding the war or forcing Bush to change course in a meaningful way.

Sure Bush will veto it. But what happens next? A veto will not get him his money. All Congress has to do to defund the surge is not send him a bill - he can not veto them not sending him a bill - so the stage is set for a negotiation. There is plenty to come on this - and the next few steps in this process will determine if it was a good move or a bad move for Congress.

I think the public/pro-troop Americans (most) will discourage that and it'll hurt the Dems, not help them - especially w/ the independents/undecideds.

That depends upon if the American public is so stupid and disrespectful of troops that they can not see the difference between the troops and the mission. I never put much faith in the American public being smart - but we shall see, there are indication that at least some of the American public has clued into the fact that the troops and the mission are different things, and that throwing away money and the lives of our troops on a pipe dream of a mission about establishing a democracy in Iraq is anything but supporting our troops - it's simply getting them killed for nothing.

But as I have noted many times - the spin machines on both sides will be working overtime for the next few months - and the Bush administration will be out and about selling their pipe dream and telling folks that the troops and the mission are in fact the same thing. I expect Bush will not change the political strategy in Iraq and will keep up his rhetoric about supporting the troops - when in fact he is really talking about supporting a mission that simply results in our troops being killed for nothing.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Why do we even keep the POTUS as anything but a figurehead?

[Ban my account ffs!]

I am with the Democrats here.  Bring the troops home.  They don't want to be there anymore and Bush's stubbornness will not make things better.  Conservatives are always talking about letting things work themselves out without government intervention... let's give it a try.  Let Iraq work things out without the U.S. breathing down their neck.

[nlm]

I am with the Democrats here.  Bring the troops home.  They don't want to be there anymore and Bush's stubbornness will not make things better.  Conservatives are always talking about letting things work themselves out without government intervention... let's give it a try.  Let Iraq work things out without the U.S. breathing down their neck.

Give me your honest opinion of what happen to the middle east as a whole, not just Iraq, if we do that.

I'm not going to hit with fear mongering about terrorists following us home - but what do you think happens to the region, and what impact do you think it has on us?

I see a disaster.

You would instantly see the Shia militias that essentially are driving the current government backed by Iran.

You would immediately see them consolidate their power. That means consolidating Iranian influence. They'd also look to expand that.

The Arab states in the region, America's allies, who have been screaming about this since before the invasion, would not be able to sit back. They'd have to respond by supporting the Sunnis.

So you would see the country immediately turn into an Iranian proxy kind of territory or Iranian sponsored territory and then an al Qaeda-dominated Sunni-Arab regional backed semi-state, at war with each other, that would suck in all the regional players.

I'm on record all over the place here with what my opinion is and why it is such (and I'm not with the Dems or the GOP) - but if you are going to make a statement like that - it's fair to ask you what the end result of your suggestion would be.

[nlm]

Still waiting Snowguy.