If the Dems cut the funding who will end up being blamed for the Iraq fiasco?

[NNN0LHI]

Any ideas?

Don

[rainy]

1. I think that Bush's call for more troops is so he can say he tried to make it

work but the Dems wouldn't let him. He knows he wont get approval for the surge in troops so this his way of blaming it on the democrats. When the war is finally declared a loss he can say I tried to send more troops, I needed more money, its the liberals fault, just like in Vietnam......

[MadHound]

2. Don't know, don't care, I just want the killing to end.

And frankly, if the Dems take the cowardly way out and refuse to end this war due to how they think it will effect their political careers, then they are nothing but cowards who do not deserve the office that they were elected to.

Don't forget, the public put majorities of Dems in the House and Senate for one very specific reason, to stop the war ASAP. If they fail in doing so, for whatever reason, they won't survive '08.

[seabeyond]

14. bush's war not the dems. bush's decisions not the dems.

regardless of what the dems do bush will continue. the war is NOT going to stop as much as you want it to. the best the dems can do is everything they are capable of consitutionally and legally and yet.... bush will continue. bush gets the blame, not the dems

[MadHound]

25. Wow, what a defeatist attitude

"Bush will do what he wishes, so why should the Dems really try?" And meanwhile the death toll mounts.

Sorry but this is still something of a democracy, and the legislative wing still has a fair amount of power that they can bring to bear, if they so choose. They have the power of the purse, they have the power of the bully pulpit, they have the power of investigation. They should be using all of this power, and any other that they can constitutionally muster to bring this war to an end.

Cut the funding, and use the power of the bully pulpit to explain to the American people why they are doing so. Having elected the Dems to power in order to stop the war, I think that the public will understand.

And if Bush still finds someway to keep this war going(as many have speculated with those missing billions of dollars, or by forcing the military to continue with no incoming money) use the power of investigation and impeachment to bring Bush to heel. This was not only a win for moderate Dems, but also a win for moderate 'Pugs. The same sort of coalition that came together to bring down Nixon, and it can be done again. There is a clear mandate from the people to end the war ASAP, and if both sides fail to heed this groundswell opinion, they'll all be gone in '08.

Yes this is Bush's war, we all know that, the public has put the blame squarely on his shoulders, the last election clearly shows that the public "gets it". However the last election also showed that the public wants a change, and wants the Dems to lead the way back out of this quagmire. It should be the highest priority for both the House and the Senate. Because while we sit here discussing the blame game, or minimum wage, or ethics reform, people are dying. To paraphrase Kerry, how can we face the family of a dead Iraqi innocent, or a dead American soldier and tell them that their child died because we thought ethics reform, or minimum wage was more important? How can we face them and say that the Democratic party failed to put forth the utmost effort to save their family member because we were convinced that "Bush would continue anyway".

Times passing, people are needlessly dying. Now that the Dems have more power, they have got to fulfill the publics' mandate and do everything they can to end this war. Anything less is criminal.

[seabeyond]

26. not defeatist at all. day one the dems have started using the bully pulpit

wonderfully. i am not a defeatist.... i prefer to see things as they are. second post was more realistic. and all the things you suggest take time. none of it is now. killing to we all want the end yesterday. didnt get it. all this will take time. i am all for watching to see how much more of a mess comes about over time and maybe that alone will force bush to pull out. but dems are doing the work, from what i see the first day in

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. We will, of course.

Look, we're in nearly a no-win situation here, which is why it has to be dealt with very carefully.

I believe this will be the (wise) course of action by Democrats:

Step 1: Hearings. Many, many hearings about the state of the war, the evidence leading up to the war, conduct of our troops, conduct of the contractors and how they obtained said contracts, and what can be done to stop it. This will probably take the better part of this year, if not through next year.

Step 2: Call on Bush formally to end the war on his own. Give him the opportunity to do it himself, so that if/when we have to do it for him by cutting the funding, it will truly look like the only option left.

Step 3: Cut funding. Don't expect this until late 2008, at best.

Though people oppose the war, they also seem to oppose cutting funding completely. By taking this course of action, it gives time for people to come around to the idea that it's the only option left. This will be the best way to end the war.

[kentuck]

4. Since the Repub own the media that counts...

The Democrats would be blamed. Also, the Rpubs are better at PR and propaganda.

[brazos121200]

5. No matter what the Democrats do or don't do this is Bush's war and he

will be held responsible for whatever happens by the American people. Sure Bush will try to blame the Democrats for all his failures past and future, but people are no longer buying it. The only weapon the Dems will have is to cut the funding for the war, if they don't do that they will do nothing, so this is what they will have to do if they are serious about ending the war. A clear majority of the people now are opposed to the war and know the war was started by Bush using lies and deception. The tragedy is that many more American troops may be killed or injured over there if funding cuts curtail even more the quality of their weaponry, God knows its already inferior.

[malaise]

6. Bingo

This is Bushco's disaster, fiasco, war crime, whatever. IMPEACH

[salin]

7. short term, intermediate rw revisionism, or longterm historical

perspective?

Short term - bush gets the blame - most folks want out - the association with bush for the fiasco is too strong for the blame to all be shifted away.

intermediate rw revisionism - dems - this will be repeated for years by rw echo chamberites and will eventually shape public perception to accept this.

long term historical - bush.

[Atman]

8. I think blaming the dems is the only "strategery" Bush is working on

I think they almost relished losing control, not that they wanted to lose ALL of it. But I do think they looked upon passing the whole mess off on the democrats is a winning 2008 election strategy. Anything that goes wrong now will be our fault. The republics will even talk about how swell things were going while Bush had total control. Which brings me to the real clincher...Halliburton's rigging up the next "attack" as we speak, just so Bush and Cheney can say "I TOLD YOU SO!" and keep the Fear and Terra elevated, and democrats permanently labeled as the pussies who wouldn't let the president defend us from the evil doers.



.

[davhill]

9. Pay as you go

Attach to any new Iraq spending a "temporary" surtax on the on the richest 10 % sufficent to offset the spending. Tax would be sunseted when the war on terror is declared over.

[blondeatlast]

11. I like this idea. While the rest of us sacrifice our sons and daughter, moms and dads,

and brothers and sisters, let the easy livers get hit where it hurts them most.

We'd be outta there in a month if this would happen.

[screembloodymurder]

10. Bush is driving the country over a cliff

and the Dems want to put on the brakes. Who cares who gets blamed. If we don't stop him we're all dead. The idiot wants to put the Navy in charge of a ground war. He's fucking nuts.

[beachmom]

12. Barney Frank said Bush has enough cash for the troop surge

The Dems could say "not one more penny" and this war could go on for quite some time from the last Defense appropriations and from reshuffling the Pentagon budget. This is Bush's war -- I hope a lot of Dems vote against the funding, but I'm pretty pessimistic on what Dems can do to stop this war.

[genie_weenie]

13. It'll be a variation on the "Stabbed in the Back" cry.

It's worked before and will again.

[Norquist Nemesis]

15. You've had your news on mute

Republicans have pointed the finger at Democrats the "war" from the beginning. "It's not OUR fault. Democrats voted for it too!"

They're not going to stop now.

[Geek_Girl]

16. The Dems will be blamed

But so what they'll be blamed regardless. The Democratic party has got to step up to the plate and do whatever they can to stop this war.

[ecstatic]

17. No matter what we do, Iraq will remain a disaster zone. That's why I come down harshly

on anyone who had anything to do with enabling Bush & Co. back in 2002/2003.

Honestly, cutting funding... immediate withdrawal... staying the course... every last option is worthless now that we're there.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. The Republicans will blame the Dems for the loss of Iraq no matter what.

All you have to do is read any RW blog, newspaper or magazine. Or watch, or listen to, any RW talking-head, and they've been blaming the Dems and the left for the defeat since things went sour and the troops weren't overwhelmed by flowers.

If you mean "the people", who knows? There are still plenty of people who believe that we "could have won" in Vietnam if the "military had been allowed to do it's job".

Bullshit still sells if wrapped in a flag.

[WinkyDink]

19. I'm getting tired of people worrying about Democrats' being "blamed" for anything

at this stage.

[NNN0LHI]

21. So if everything turns to shit and the Dems take the hit for losing Iraq...

...and allow the Republicans to regain control over Congress again with another Republican president in a couple of years and then they begin invasion plans for Iran and Syria it would be alright with you?

Just as long as we leave Iraq because you are tired of people worrying about these things?

Is that the case here or am I misunderstanding something?

Don

[Jacobin]

22. I know what you are saying, but taken to its logical extreme

that would mean that the democratic president elected in 2008 would need to keep troops in IraqNam to 'win', and presumably for as long thereafter as a democrat in the WH or a democratic congress held the majority.

I think its not a good idea to allow the perceptions of your enemy to guide you in doing what's right. There are still idiots who think VietNam could have been 'won' if only we had stayed another 20 years and they blame the democrats. Fork them.

[WinkyDink]

24. It's January 5. Cool your worry-wart jets. And put away your ridiculous

extrapolation of my words. Your "if"'s and "then"'s are not exactly givens, now are they?

BTW, what does "losing Iraq" mean to you?

[spanone]

20. The American people have already laid the blame on Junior & his congress. GET US OUT NOW.

[seabeyond]

23. HOW are the dems suppose to get us out NOW? n/t