Democrats getting end arounded again??
 

Not that I mind watching them flounder on TV or anything, but looking at this from a purely political strategy viewpoint, what the hell are the Dems thinking?

Just last week we saw two resolutions proposed from the Dems, one called for a troop pullout timetable and the other just a non-binding troop drawdown as conditions allow. Both were defeated, Kerry's pretty badly.

So they show that they are a fractured party on the plan going forward in Iraq AND allow the Republicans to pull the "cut and run" card in November and then today General Casey puts his recommendation forward to Bush which calls for 28,000 less frontline troops by 2007 which means the total number in Iraq (counting support troops as well) could be around 50,000 by December 2007, at least according to the Today show this morning.

What the hell? The top Dems had to know that recommendation was coming, why would they stick their necks out on the chopping block and give the Republicans a free whack? Doesn't make sense to me.

It is all election cycle posturing

I think the Republicans will lose in November, except for the Democrats...

It's a "Throw-up" who'll win. I just know who is gonna lose.

You have to be kidding me?...The Democrat party is in total meltdown. Bush has been vindicated and Rove aint done with the left yet. Howard Dean keeps sticking his foot in his mouth. Pelosi leads the idiots in the House of Reps...Republicans are going to either gain or keep their ground.

So...Isn't it a brilliant move on the part of the administration to yoyo about troop reduction and THEN advocate it?

"A successful politician is one who observes the direction in which the crowd is moving, and then rushes to the front as if he were always in the lead".

No wonder the public mistrusts elected officials.

I disagree. The administration has long stated that troop levels will be left up to the military generals and not the politicians. I don't see the administration 'yoyo'ing on this, when the New York Times published a leaked classified report. I'm sure they've discussed it for a long time, and with al-Qaeda getting demolished in Iraq, they are assessing reductions in more detail.

Straightforward politics. Simple.

Now the dems can announce that not only are the reps unwilling to invoke a timetable and come clean on their Iraq intentions, they are further unwilling to even promise to be reasonable about drawdown as conditions allow. .....until the military report came out which recommended this, and which they could not further ignore.

It's all about perception and spin.

November is going to be a bad month for Mul. In fact, the next twenty years won't be fun for Mul.

Did some minor needed corrections on your post...

See I disagree Supe. The Republicans can say that they waited for the military to tell them when to draw down troops while they accuse the Dems of using the troops for political gain during an election year.

If I were a Democrat strategist I would either have proposed one plan that was exactly what Gen. Casey was going to propose a week later (I'm sure the people on Capitol hill knew what was in that proposal) or I would have just kept mum until the proposal came out. The way they did it they set themselves up for two defeats in one day and allowed the Republicans to still get troops out (which is what will get votes back) while saying they stayed the course and held their ground under ruthless Democrat attack.

Just seems like a bad move to me.

914...Respectfully.....

It is the administration doing what it has accused the opposition of doing..waffling on an issue and then claiming the high ground. It wouldn't be much different if the party in power were the Dems...It is politics as usual; wasting energy on infighting rather than on finding workable solutions to problems. Immigration is an excellent example.

Troop levels are the purview of the civilian administrators. How many military have said their recommendations were ignored? The administration is in charge; the military reports to the president, not the other way around.

I would not refer to Al Queda as "getting demolished" yet. There is a long ways to go, and that long way will take us other places than simply Iraq.

Are you referring to the numerous old retired generals paid by the media as consultants, or the commanding generals in the field? The administration said it would be left to the commanders, and the commanders discussed a plan post-Zarqawi and the media leaks it. I don't see this as the administration doing a yoyo.

914:

Commissioned officers at the upper ranks are employees and "serve at the pleasure" of the administration. Those wishing to keep their jobs and are on active duty dare not publicly speak up lest they anger the administrative gods. That is why, sometimes, you see "an undisclosed source" cited.

And if the administration accepts the "plan" after denying any reduction was in the works? I fail to see how this is not simply manipulating things to suit their agenda.

And,. the generals WERE ignored re: required strength needed after the initial military victory.

This entire "war in terror" reminds me of a Mongolian Clusterf@#k. Washington has "bobbed and weaved" its way through so many reasons for this, reasons for that, that anyone thinking for themselves runs the risk of actually seeing the inconsistencies. But, such an individual also runs the risk of being called a traitor, and accused of aiding the enemy and betraying our brave fighting men and women. Frankly, the jingoism, wrapping ones self in the flag, and "my president can do no wrong" becomes trite, meaningless,and boring.

The far Left has big money and resources. Look at what their doing to respected Dem Sen Joe Liberman. His outcome may determine the slope of the Dem party.

Dem party bs is stroking the far left. IMO if they don't stroke them it will leave an opening for a 3rd party Pres candidate.

The far Left's "vision" would eventually leave Iran in control of the gulf. Terrorist funding and recruitment would skyrocket.

The problem with the Democratic Party is that the Leadership represents the FAR Left point of view. They are anti any military action the US is involved in. They see the USA as the big bad oger in the world and couch theyre criticism in how much better we could be terms..they view making money as a capital sin that violates the very dignity of man.

Mull: re-read my post...

They will lose, except for the Democrats....

I'm no prize with my posts so I'm only guessing below.

"I think the Republicans will lose in November"
------ meaning the Rep base and Rep middle voters will lose due to beltway disfunction ?

"except for the Democrats..."
---------- meaning the power of the Far left will expand no matter what happens in the election ?

"It's a "Throw-up" who'll win. I just know who is gonna lose."
--------- meaning either the Senate or House could go to the Dems and the voter has seen a loss of voter power thru redistricting ?

"It's a "Throw-up" who'll win"
--------- meaning the voting process is gross ?

Ailimentray my dear Ronin.

The Repblians would lose in November except for the Dems putting their foots in ones mouth..or the Dems are their own worst enemy.

The Dems need to badly wooped again, then the Radical Left in the Party will lose power and a more moderate Dem platform will emerge. But right now the Dems are still smoking their 60s stash of Radicalism.

Diebold voting machines running Windows.

i know i was a little young then, but werent the dems in charge till johnson didnt run for relection in '68?

Tabs got it