LA Times Editorial attacks Pelosi/Democrats

JaJae · 03-13-2007, 06:45 PM

Do we really need a Gen. Pelosi?
Congress can cut funding for Iraq, but it shouldn't micromanage the war.

March 12, 2007

AFTER WEEKS OF internal strife, House Democrats have brought forth their proposal for forcing President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008. The plan is an unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, Bush says he'll veto it, as well he should.

It was one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding vote of disapproval. It's quite another for it to set out a detailed timetable with specific benchmarks and conditions for the continuation of the conflict. Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy.

This is not to say that Congress has no constitutional leverage — only that it should exercise it responsibly. In a sense, both Bush and the more ardent opponents of the war are right. If a majority in Congress truly believes that the war is not in the national interest, then lawmakers should have the courage of their convictions and vote to stop funding U.S. involvement. They could cut the final checks in six months or so to give Bush time to manage the withdrawal. Or lawmakers could, as some Senate Democrats are proposing, revoke the authority that Congress gave Bush in 2002 to use force against Iraq.

But if Congress accepts Bush's argument that there is still hope, however faint, that the U.S. military can be effective in quelling the sectarian violence, that U.S. economic aid can yet bring about an improvement in Iraqi lives that won't be bombed away and that American diplomatic power can be harnessed to pressure Shiites and Sunnis to make peace — if Congress accepts this, then lawmakers have a duty to let the president try this "surge and leverage" strategy.

By interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome. It's absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) to try to micromanage the conflict, and the evolution of Iraqi society, with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.

Congress should not hinder Bush's ability to seek the best possible endgame to this very bad war. The president needs the leeway to threaten, or negotiate with, Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds, Syrians and Iranians and Turks. Congress can find many ways to express its view that U.S. involvement, certainly at this level, must not go on indefinitely, but it must not limit the president's ability to maneuver at this critical juncture.

Bush's wartime leadership does not inspire much confidence. But he has made adjustments to his team, and there's little doubt that a few hundred legislators do not a capable commander in chief make. These aren't partisan judgments — we also condemned Republican efforts to micromanage President Clinton's conduct of military operations in the Balkans.

Members of Congress need to act responsibly, debating the essence of the choice the United States now faces — to stay or go — and putting their money where their mouths are. But too many lives are at stake to allow members of Congress to play the role of Eisenhower or Lincoln.

Los Angeles Times: Do we really need a Gen. Pelosi?

This recent LA Times editorial speaks volumes about the current Democratic strategy and Pelosi. It does a good job of even handedly pointing out the problems with this current pull-out strategy. Either fight to win or leave. You can't play the middle road here. Either support the military in Iraq or get them out. Once you start putting time tables and making arbitrary time lines you're undermining the whole process.

Democrats have to understand that with control of Congress they are half responsible for everything that happens now. They need to take charge and actually do something. They have shamefully thrown in a pull-out plan into a bill to fund wounded soldiers that sets guidelines and restricts the authority of our military. What's worse, they are setting this bill up in such a way to make it seem as if they are not responsible for the outcome of their bill. By saying "Bush must show progress" and "Bush must be held accountable" they're clearly attempting to take all responsibility away from themselves for THEIR bill.

Setting such a time table is not the way to fight a war in Iraq. Either fight the war properly or get the hell out, this "slow bleed" mentality of looking for an excuse to pin the pullout on Bush or setting a timetable to pull troops out of Iraq arbitrarily makes no sense whatsoever. Our enemy needs to either know we're in it to fight or we need to get the hell out. Trying to play the middle road is dangerous to our troops as well as the Iraqis. The very notion of setting such an arbitrary timetable sets up entire war for failure. If this passes it removes all leverage from Bush and our military. You might as well tie their hands behind their backs and wait for the fallout to ensue just before the Democrats can come in waiving the white flag saying "See we knew it would fail, now because YOU failed WE'RE bringing our troops home."

RMNIXON · 03-13-2007, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Democrats have to understand that with control of Congress they are half responsible for everything that happens now. They need to take charge and actually do something. They have shamefully thrown in a pull-out plan into a bill to fund wounded soldiers that sets guidelines and restricts the authority of our military. What's worse, they are setting this bill up in such a way to make it seem as if they are not responsible for the outcome of their bill. By saying "Bush must show progress" and "Bush must be held accountable" they're clearly attempting to take all responsibility away from themselves for THEIR bill.

Thorgrim · 03-13-2007, 06:58 PM

I must have missed something, did the Democrats actually pass anytihng yet...is there some bill on the floor they are debating right now that I am unaware of...?

This is all speculation, and if I'm going to hear any right-wingers talk about the LA Times I'll remind them how hopelessly bias and untrustworthy that newspaper is in their minds

smokie700 · 03-13-2007, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I must have missed something, did the Democrats actually pass anytihng yet...is there some bill on the floor they are debating right now that I am unaware of...?

This is all speculation, and if I'm going to hear any right-wingers talk about the LA Times I'll remind them how hopelessly bias and untrustworthy that newspaper is in their minds

even the sun shines on a dog's ass sometimes. I actually think it is a very good article with some really valid points.

the dem's may not have passed anything but they broke the news about it and wanted to pass it before they turned it into a clusterfuck.

Scrum · 03-13-2007, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

This is all speculation, and if I'm going to hear any right-wingers talk about the LA Times I'll remind them how hopelessly bias and untrustworthy that newspaper is in their minds

It agrees with what they think, so it's ok to believe them for just this article.

Thorgrim · 03-13-2007, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by smokie700

even the sun shines on a dog's ass sometimes. I actually think it is a very good article with some really valid points.

the dem's may not have passed anything but they broke the news about it and wanted to pass it before they turned it into a clusterfuck.

You like a piece that attacks democrats, shocking

The rest of your post is conjecture and theory

Since being elected, and this month...the Democrats have continued to enjoy comfortable support in the polls and are still set to pick up more Congressional seats, the White House, and pretty much have done an amazing political job

smokie700 · 03-13-2007, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You like a piece that attacks democrats, shocking

The rest of your post is conjecture and theory

Since being elected, and this month...the Democrats have continued to enjoy comfortable support in the polls and are still set to pick up more Congressional seats, the White House, and pretty much have done an amazing political job

and it is just as shocking when you like a piece that attacks the Republicans.

BTW you replied with the dribble about nothing being passed yet. If there never was a plan to pass anything then why would the Dem's starting plastering the proposal all over the airwaves?

Thorgrim · 03-13-2007, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by smokie700

and it is just as shocking when you like a piece that attacks the Republicans.

BTW you replied with the dribble about nothing being passed yet. If there never was a plan to pass anything then why would the Dem's starting plastering the proposal all over the airwaves?

In a Democracy, we throw out ideas and have a public discourse

Diesel66 · 03-13-2007, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

In a Democracy, we throw out ideas and have a public discourse

yet you said ??

You like a piece that attacks democrats, shocking

The rest of your post is conjecture and theory

JaJae · 03-13-2007, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

In a Democracy, we throw out ideas and have a public discourse

A bill is not just an idea. It is a proposal. A very stupid one that the Democrats wrote and can't even articulate on.

Thorgrim · 03-13-2007, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

A bill is not just an idea. It is a proposal. A very stupid one that the Democrats wrote and can't even articulate on.

Link to bill being considered on the house floor? I don't see anything on THOMAS (Library of Congress)

JaJae · 03-13-2007, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Link to bill being considered on the house floor? I don't see anything on THOMAS (Library of Congress)

When they can figure out their own bill it will be presented (I believe Thursday is the date). Unless the media rips em a new one and they run away from it.

Regardless of how it would like to be spun, this was a Democratic proposal for Iraq. It wasn't just some random idea. It was presented as a proposal and a plan of action to move ahead with.

grembert · 03-13-2007, 08:57 PM

Bush has said for years " Don't question my decisions about Iraq because that would be unpatriotic. " Now, as an independent study calls for, and the majority of Americans want, Congress is looking for some alternatives. There is not going to be a sudden withdrawl of troops ( by Gen. Pelosi ) but there is not going to be a ten year commitment of troops, either.

Thorgrim · 03-13-2007, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

When they can figure out their own bill it will be presented (I believe Thursday is the date). Unless the media rips em a new one and they run away from it.

Regardless of how it would like to be spun, this was a Democratic proposal for Iraq. It wasn't just some random idea. It was presented as a proposal and a plan of action to move ahead with.

I really doubt people are going to look back and go "well this bill the democrats passed, ok whatever, but look what they were THINKING about, look what this blue dog said and this black caucus member said, they were total opposites, they were having a debate! incredible!"

Scrum · 03-13-2007, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Regardless of how it would like to be spun, this was a Democratic proposal for Iraq. It wasn't just some random idea. It was presented as a proposal and a plan of action to move ahead with.

Where was it presented? On the floor?

Pro Street · 03-13-2007, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Regardless of how it would like to be spun, this was a Democratic proposal for Iraq. It wasn't just some random idea. It was presented as a proposal and a plan of action to move ahead with.

again, there's no actual bill.

and if you want to hold Congress half responsible, you need to allow them to show the authority of that, regardless of your feelings.

RMNIXON · 03-14-2007, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

When they can figure out their own bill it will be presented (I believe Thursday is the date). Unless the media rips em a new one and they run away from it.

Regardless of how it would like to be spun, this was a Democratic proposal for Iraq. It wasn't just some random idea. It was presented as a proposal and a plan of action to move ahead with.

Far left Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) chewed out Pelosi so bad outside of committee they won't even quote the conversation. Too bad we can't hear this debate!

Thorgrim · 03-15-2007, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Far left Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) chewed out Pelosi so bad outside of committee they won't even quote the conversation. Too bad we can't hear this debate!

Bush chewed out Cheney so bad today they didn't even quote the conversation!

tbone · 03-15-2007, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

It does a good job of even handedly pointing out the problems with this current pull-out strategy.

That is the funniest thing I have ever read in these forums!! Thanks for the laugh.

You need to look up the meaning of "even handedly."

Thorgrim is right, there have been ideas leaked or publicly acknowledged from democrats that range from a complete pull out immediately (which you give as a choice above JaJae, but didn't seem to agree with at the time) to letting Bush have his way and occupying Iraq for another decade. This is an idea and most likely will change with debate from both the democrats and replublicans, if they are to override a Presidential veto, which has been threatened.

So debate away just like they are doing in the democratic party, but realize you are debating a rough idea and not the final product.