The Politics of Ending Bush's War

C

Cypress

Well-known member
We are left with several possibilities.

1) Congress simply withholds funding for the war.

IMO, Bush will then just leave troops there to die. No, he won't say he's doing this. He will even make symbolic gestures of moving troops around. But, he'll let them run short on ammo and equipment, and then turn around and say that the Democrats are responsible for letting the troops run out of bullets in the middle of combat.

2) Congress passes war funding, with legally binding withdrawl deadlines.

Bush vetoes. Republicans overwhelmingly side with Bush. Congress can't overide veto.

3) Backdoor strategy.

Congress passes Webb bill, mandating that - per army regs - troops have to stay home at least as long as they serve in a tour. 12 month tour = 12 months at home. This, in a back door way, forces bush to draw down troops. The bill passes with universal Democratic support, but Bush vetoes and republicans in congress stand by their man. Veto can't be over ridden.

4) Congress caves, and gives bush his war money, hoping that a Democratic president and larger democratic majority in congress begins to redeploy the troops in 2009.


My guess? Bush occupation of iraq continues into 2009.
 
My guess? Bush occupation of iraq continues into 2009.
//

that is the plan. How else can we keep the oil supply secure ?
Umm.... even though we have done a piss poor job at that so far.
The plan is pretty much a permanent presence in Iraq. After all why else build the embassy fortress ?
 
Pretty sound analysis. #1 is definitely out; I think there are even many Democrats who wouldn't support that.

Honestly, I don't see that much of a change under President H. Clinton. A lot depends on the Dems keeping their majority in the House. She might be hard-pressed to veto timeline legislation, but in the role of CIC, I don't see her proactively changing the policy, or the length of time we're there...
 
With oil going up I can't see Ron Paul as president even getting us out of Iraq....
He may genuinely want to but would not be able to get it done I think.
 
5. Pretend to give a fuck. Blame continuation of the war on the lack of an overwhelming majority. Use as political carrot. Keep doing the same thing.

This is the same copout we heard from Repubs on limiting government. No matter how much they controlled they always claimed they needed to start the reforms.
 
That's probably true of some, RString, but I think there are more & more on both sides who sincerely want to end this thing at this point.

If the Democrats have a majority & the White House in '09, this is going to be a major, major problem for them. Even those who are just concerned about power will have to shift their thinking, because it will be up to them to solve if they truly get that power and want to keep it...
 
If the dems get enough power to end the war will they want to ? They will be forced to admit to the real reason we invaded. OIL....
Look for more bits about the war being about oil to start slipping out to prepare the public ....
 
RStringfield said:
5. Pretend to give a fuck. Blame continuation of the war on the lack of an overwhelming majority. Use as political carrot. Keep doing the same thing.

This is the same copout we heard from Repubs on limiting government. No matter how much they controlled they always claimed they needed to start the reforms.
Click to expand...

No doubt there is a certain element of cowardice among many Dem congresspersons to take bold action to end the war. One can claim that its always taken some measure of bipartisan consensus to either start, or end, wars (korea, vietnam), but it doesn't obscure the fact that some cowardice is involved.
 
With Senator Clinton as president the stedfast determination to never consider any options other than all out "victory", (whatever that means) will be gone.
 
Cypress said:
No doubt there is a certain element of cowardice among many Dem congresspersons to take bold action to end the war. One can claim that its always taken some measure of bipartisan consensus to either start, or end, wars (korea, vietnam), but it doesn't obscure the fact that some cowardice is involved.
Click to expand...

Sure, because the Republicans have tried to blame VIETNAM on the Democrats for decades, they are trying to avoid having Bush's Iraq hung around there neck for the next thirty years.
 
Cypress said:
No doubt there is a certain element of cowardice among many Dem congresspersons to take bold action to end the war. One can claim that its always taken some measure of bipartisan consensus to either start, or end, wars (korea, vietnam), but it doesn't obscure the fact that some cowardice is involved.
Click to expand...


I'm also realistic. Paul or Kucinich aren't going to win.

Which candidates are going to actually try to drawdown or redeploy our combat forces from the middle of a civil war in Iraq, adhering to international law, cultivate allies, and be very judicious about starting a possible war with Iran? Edwards/Obama/Clinton? Or Rudy/McCain/Romney?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top