It's Becoming More Clear what the Democratic "Strategy" is now

[jluetjen]

Watching exchanges like these, it's becoming obvious that the democratic "strategy" for the house and senate is merely to be as obstructionist as possible, basically taking their "back bench" strategy into their majority role. As far as their strategy for moving forward in the middle east, near as I can tell it's strictly isolationist. Basically, get out ASAP and leave it up to someone else to figure out.

I don't know about anyone else, but it's not terribly clear to me what Palosi et al's vision is to help make the world a better place. Is it that bad people in the rest of the world can do whatever they want to each other, and we'll just ass-u-me that they never cross our borders. I didn't seem to see a glimmer of understanding on the part of the committee members regarding the uncertainty of the future. If you can't predict exactly what the casualty rate will be, then we shouldn't do something. They don't seem to get the concept that if we win and the Iraqi's set up their own government processes, the casualties will go down, if we lose or leave, it's only going to get worse.

[john70t]

Remember when the United States went officially bankrupt when Clinton was president?
This was soley because the republican house and senate joined and blocked everything.

Which party began the recent partisan back-stabbing political atmosphere?

[onewhippedpuppy]

They both suck. There, I settled it.

The thing that bugs me, you always see prominent democrats, getting their faces on the TV, bashing Bush. Fine, bash the guy, God knows things could have been done better. But present your own plan! It's never a statement that Bush screwed up, here's my plan.......it's childish name calling. They don't know what to do any more than he does. Is this what passes for leadership in this country? Hell, right or wrong, at least Bush has the balls to lay out a plan.

[coloradoporsche]

Ahh sweet gridlock. I love it. Our nation's most fiscally responsible governments have had power divided between executive and legislative branches.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by jluetjen
Watching exchanges like these, it's becoming obvious that the democratic "strategy" for the house and senate is merely to be as obstructionist as possible, basically taking their "back bench" strategy into their majority role. As far as their strategy for moving forward in the middle east, near as I can tell it's strictly isolationist. Basically, get out ASAP and leave it up to someone else to figure out.

I don't know about anyone else, but it's not terribly clear to me what Palosi et al's vision is to help make the world a better place. Is it that bad people in the rest of the world can do whatever they want to each other, and we'll just ass-u-me that they never cross our borders. I didn't seem to see a glimmer of understanding on the part of the committee members regarding the uncertainty of the future. If you can't predict exactly what the casualty rate will be, then we shouldn't do something. They don't seem to get the concept that if we win and the Iraqi's set up their own government processes, the casualties will go down, if we lose or leave, it's only going to get worse.

To me her strategy to 'make the world a better place' is a very simple one:

Stop George Bush.

She better hurry too, before W abolishes Congress next.

[Jim Richards]

Congress doesn't get to make the plan for war, only authorize it and fund it. The Prez did a bang up job of consulting with Congress in advance of his decisions on what the plan would be. Oh, he didn't? I'm shocked! There is concern on both sides of the aisle regarding B2's Iraq uh, er, "strategy."

[m21sniper]

That's "strategery" Jim, get it straight.

[Jim Richards]

D'oh!

[onewhippedpuppy]

I won't argue for/against his plan, but where's the other suggestions? Oh yeah, everybody else is too damn scared to put their neck out. I hate politics.

[DaveE]

I just love the perspective, "Don't bash me for sending us up the creek without a paddle unless you have a plan for getting us out".

[Nathans_Dad]

Dave, exactly what does the bashing accomplish besides increasing the smirk on the face of the Democrats?

Seriously, is it responsible for our government to spend valuable legislative time bashing the administration without offering any real plans while our troops are in harm's way?

[m21sniper]

I believe their real plan is "Get the hell out of there."

Seems pretty evident to me. And yes, pointing out that a moron is a moron to those who may not be priivy is always a worthwhile endeavor.

Because in case you didn't know, W is a moron.

[Jeff Higgins]

Like I've said before, their only platform is "we are not Republicans". It is very sad that all they have been able to do is look back and tell us what they would not have done, rather than what they will do from here. Hindsight with no vision will get us nowhere.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by m21sniper
I believe their real plan is "Get the hell out of there."

Seems pretty evident to me. And yes, pointing out that a moron is a moron to those who may not be priivy is always a worthwhile endeavor.

Because in case you didn't know, W is a moron.

Rodeo? Is that you?

[john70t]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Seriously, is it responsible for our government to spend valuable legislative time bashing the administration without offering any real plans while our troops are in harm's way?

Obviously not. The constitutional system of "checks and balances" is obstructionist in nature and should be done away with.

We need a (better) permanent War Powers Act that the president can vote into place.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Like I've said before, their only platform is "we are not Republicans". It is very sad that all they have been able to do is look back and tell us what they would not have done, rather than what they will do from here. Hindsight with no vision will get us nowhere.

Very true. All their bashing accomplishes is to make it painfully obvious that they have no better solution.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by john70t
Obviously not. The constitutional system of "checks and balances" is obstructionist in nature and should be done away with.

We need a (better) permanent War Powers Act that the president can vote into place.

While I give you points for nice use of , your response has nothing to do with my statement.

I take it then that you would rather see Congress bickering back and forth rather than trying to figure out the best way to move forward?

I guess the Dems want their pound of flesh, so what if it means they offer no plan forward.

[DaveE]

Yes. What right do I have to complain about what my President does? Who am I, after all?

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Rodeo? Is that you?

I think i must be the only poster in the history of OT that has been mistaken for BOTH Rodeo AND Mul.

I should get some kind of a friggin' door prize for this!

NATHAN'S DAD: "I take it then that you would rather see Congress bickering back and forth rather than trying to figure out the best way to move forward?"

ND, the democrats obviously have a plan, and that plan is obviously to force us out of Iraq without turning their newfound constituency against them in the process.

As i said already, it is completely obvious to me.

[Jim Richards]

Guys, I really think you're gonna need to get over it. The years of rubber stamping B2's "stratergy" are over. B2 came out of the gate as the deciderer and didn't involve Congress in formulating a plan. B2's faux cowboy mentality continues to haunt him. He and his cadre are just gonna have to deal with that.