Texas Tea
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
yes, they did. by saying the reps failed (which they had), and saying they could get better results, they have indeed taken ownership of the war. In doing so, they have to make sure that any success is credited to them while nay failure is credited to shrub. it's gonna be tough to pull that one off.
uscitizen
Villified User
You're right. Dems should get aggresive on Iraq. Bush's bungled war is the most important issue we have:
Wash Post: "Democratic leaders who had hoped to emphasize their domestic agenda in the opening weeks of Congress have concluded that Iraq will share top billing, and they plan on aggressively confronting administration officials this week in a series of hearings."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/07/AR2007010701097.html
Right... I can fit either. However, those who voted for Dems because of the war are expecting them to take responsibility attempting to distance themselves afterward by spin will not benefit them. Cypress is correct, and those who were elected are not attempting to, at this time, distance themselves. They are working on "confrontation"...Umm, is this about dems or repubs, it fits the repubs perfectly
To attempt to spin away from the reason they were elected will only negatively effect them.
Oh lord: we're back to the failed "Where's the Democrats Plan" argument.
Rush Limbaugh tried the "Where's the Democrats Plan?" crap and it didn't fly.
Congress is not responsible for coming up with a war plan. That's a commander in chief function.
Congress' role is to provide oversight of any incompetence or misconduct pertaining to the war. There's not a chance in hell you'll ever see this congress, or any congress in american history come up with a "War Plan". It doesn't happen.
At best, congress can demand a timeline for withdrawl, and cut off funding for the war.
Rush Limbaugh tried the "Where's the Democrats Plan?" crap and it didn't fly.
Congress is not responsible for coming up with a war plan. That's a commander in chief function.
Congress' role is to provide oversight of any incompetence or misconduct pertaining to the war. There's not a chance in hell you'll ever see this congress, or any congress in american history come up with a "War Plan". It doesn't happen.
At best, congress can demand a timeline for withdrawl, and cut off funding for the war.
LOL. I say, Cypress is right and they are not skirting the issue... Cypress takes it as saying they need a war plan...
Right.... Agreement is the same as argument.
Quote where I stated that they need to come up with a plan for the war... Thank you in advance.
They're only four days into their legistlative session, and you said they're not doing what they were elected to do.
They're holding oversight hearings, and possibly debating whether to fund Bush's escalation of the war.
What did you think they were supposed to be doing (constitutionally), besides holding oversight hearings, and discussing funding?
I did not say that...
Once again, find that quote. I said, "Cypress is right, they are not skirting this issue and are working towards "confrontation"..."
So, where in that statement did I say that they are not doing the job they were elected to do?
I am speaking directly to people on the board who are attempting to say that they have no responsibility toward the war, they were elected to do that. It IS what they ran on. I have NOT stated that they are not doing their job. You assign statements to me that were not in any way made.
My bad then. My apologies.
I mistakely assumed that by "ownership" of the war, you meant the Dems had to take owership of a "plan" to execute this war.
uscitizen
Villified User
that was pretty much what I understood him to say.