Victory for the Mujahideen.

[dude1394]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...ujahideen&only
A Victory for the Mujahideen

It’s not enough to make CODEPINK happy, but the Democrats did succeed in handing the enemy a major victory: House OKs timetable for troops in Iraq.

WASHINGTON - A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress’ boldest challenge yet to the administration’s policy.

Ignoring a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dude1394

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...ujahideen&only
A Victory for the Mujahideen

It’s not enough to make CODEPINK happy, but the Democrats did succeed in handing the enemy a major victory: House OKs timetable for troops in Iraq.

WASHINGTON - A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress’ boldest challenge yet to the administration’s policy.

Ignoring a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

It is nothing more than small pevish complaining. The Senate won't pass anything similar. And any compromise bill that the House and Senate sign would be vetoed and there aren't remotely enough votes to overturn Bush's veto.

The only hoped for outcome here is to score brownie points with those who hate Bush and don't understand the nature of our enemies and this conflict.

Finally, the President of the U.S. is the commander and chief under the constitution and power to move/pull/place/otherwise control troop movement is his alone. Congress has the power to declare war and make treaties. The constitution says nothing about the Congress having power to stop a war that Congress previously declared other than the power to make treaties.

How many of you think the Democrats are stupid enough to vote with numbers high enough to be effective to cut off funding for the war????

Such a move would spell total defeat for the Democrats in the elections. Although Bush's poll numbers are bad and have been for years, most Americans in polls still want the nation/troops to finish the job, stay as long as they need to, allow the generals to make the decisions, and disagree with the Congress trying to play General.

The Constitution says the President is General.

The Democrats are doing nothing but playing media games to satisfy their constituents. They have no balls or power (not enough votes) to actually fight this president.

One more note- If you want a good presidential debate in this country, then lets have a pseudo presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice. Rice won't run for president. Hillary might not win the nomination. But, I'd love to watch a real, untexted, unrehearsed, open Reagan/Mondale type debate between these two...

[EricaLubarsky]

Actually congress must declare war, but hasn't since world war 2. They also have the power of money and can check the power of the executive though fiscal controls.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Actually congress .... also have the power of money and can check the power of the executive though fiscal controls.

Much like Donald Sterling with the Clippers.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Actually congress must declare war, but hasn't since world war 2. They also have the power of money and can check the power of the executive though fiscal controls.

Congress gave Bush the green light to go into both Afghanistan and Iraq. They did indeed authorize these actions. Did they technically "declare war". Well, that is semantics. We are not trying to conquer either country or take possession indefinitely. The old concepts of war don't apply. But, Congress did authorize action in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And, every time they re-approve funding for continued efforts in these conflicts, then they are in fact re-affirming the authorization to continue the war.

So, Congress absolutely fulfilled its constitutional role in these cases and absolutely has authorized the actions of this current administration. Hillary, Kerry, McCain, Lieberman, and most others all voted for war in both places. Now, many talk like Kerry, "I voted for the war before I voted against it...."

Congress does have power over the purse strings. Congress could deny payment for military action. But, it won't happen. They have no balls and they lack the votes to force the issue. Many of the Democrats are absolutely opposed to denying funding. Most Republicans are absolutely opposed to denying funding. So, the wars will continue and funding will continue.

And, every Congressman/woman dumb enough to vote to withdraw military funding will find it very hard to get elected next time. Even though most Americans would like to see the wars end, most Americans want:
1)Generals to run the war
2)Americans to stay in action until the job is done
3)Full funding, best equipment, best protective gear, maximum investment in protection and efficiency, full efforts, no Viet Nam style retreat, no Clinton style folding (Somalia), etc.

A high percentage of Democrats polled agree with those 3 points above. There is no way anyone can run on a platform that disagrees with the above 3 points and expect to win. The percentage of people who want to "cut and run" and view that as our best option are too low to support action in a government where the officers are elected by the public.

Most Democrats and a high percentage of Republicans want to end these wars. Successful politics will be about debating strategy and action to bring about a successful or workable end to our involvement. All other talk about "pulling the troops out now" and "denying funding" are all just a lot noise with no power or intention.

As Machiavelli said (I am summarizing now but dropped a few quotes in reference that will substantiate the basic ideas), the politicians speak of morals and goals to appease the people but take actions that preserve their power as a means as meeting the goals of a government which goals are about security and stability and economics. Democrats (and Republicans) that speak of pulling troops out and cutting funding are only telling the public what they want to hear. There is no plan to actually do anything other than support the troops and the Generals and meet the goals for security, stability, and economics of this nation. One day, perhaps you will understand and recognize when politicians are lying to you (basically you can assume that they are lying if their mouths are open).

"Reputation of a prince
Concerning the behavior of a prince toward his subjects, Machiavelli writes: "Many men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all. Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good." Since there are many possible qualities that a prince can be said to possess, he must not be overly concerned about having all the good ones. Although a bad reputation should be avoided, this is not crucial in maintaining power. The only ethic that matters is one that is beneficial to the prince in dealing with the concerns of his state.


[edit] Generosity vs. parsimony
If a prince is overly generous to his subjects, Machiavelli asserts they will lose appreciation and will only greed for more. Additionally, being over-generous is not economical, because eventually all resources will be exhausted which results in higher taxes and will bring grief upon the prince. Then, if you decide to discontinue or limit your generosity, you will be labeled as a miser. Thus, Machiavelli summarizes that guarding against the people’s hatred is more important than building up a reputation for generosity. A wise prince should be more willing to be reputed a miser than be hated for trying to be too generous.


[edit] Cruelty vs. mercy
In answering the question of whether it is better to be loved than feared, Machiavelli writes, “The answer is of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.” As Machiavelli asserts, commitments made in peace are not always kept in adversity, however commitments made in fear are kept out of fear. However, a prince must ensure that he is not feared to the point of hatred, which is very possible. Above all, Machiavelli argues, do not interfere with the property of the subjects, their women, or the life of somebody without proper justification. Regarding the troops of the prince, fear is absolutely necessary to keep a large garrison united and a prince should not mind the thought of cruelty in that regard. For a prince who leads his own army, it is imperative for him to observe cruelty because that is the only way he can command his soldiers' absolute respect. Machiavelli compares two great military leaders: Hannibal and Scipio. Although Hannibal's army consisted of men of various races, they were never rebellious because they feared their leader. Scipio's men, on the other hand, were known for their mutiny and dissension."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pri...on_of_a_prince

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

the politicians speak of morals and goals to appease the people but take actions that preserve their power as a means as meeting the goals of a government which goals are about security and stability and economics.

I think a person so-inclined could make the case that this is backwards -- politicians generally use the means and goals of government to preserve their power. They frequently rationalize their actions as "I must make sure I stay in office so I can serve the people better", but it's a rather transparent rationalization, imo.

cheers

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I think a person so-inclined could make the case that this is backwards -- politicians generally use the means and goals of government to preserve their power. They frequently rationalize their actions as "I must make sure I stay in office so I can serve the people better", but it's a rather transparent rationalization, imo.

cheers

"rather transparent rationalization"

I presume that you are indicating that I am clearly a WASP (white anglosaxon protestant) and political conservative and that I am rationalizing my support for the current administration.

Actually, I am partially native American and otherwise anglosaxon. I am not protestant in the strict definition. One of my six sisters is married to a very good African American man who graduated from Notre Dame. My father is currently in a common law arrangement with a nice African American woman. One of my other sisters has a caucasian/African American child. I do not blindly support any party. If McCain or Giuliani wins the nomination for the Republican party, then I may very well vote for a Democrat for president. I'd rather have a Democrat who runs as a Democrat in office than have a Democrat running as a Republican in office (Giuliani and McCain could switch parties without changing their platforms the same way Lieberman could change parties without changing platforms). I don't want a McCain in office who the Republicans would feel required to support as he pushes for Democrat party ideals. I would rather have a Democrat in office pushing for Democrat ideals. Then the debate is honest. I dislike Hillary primarily because she is campaigning with a platform that looks like Giuliani's or McCains. She has moved to the center in what she is saying and putting forward as her platform. Anyone who believes that she is honest should re-examine. Anyone who believes she has become a centrist has been hoodwinked. Should she win, then she will push for far left agendas because that is who she is.
And, I'd rather have Hillary in office than McCain or Giuliani. Like I said, I want honest debates and straight forward approaches. I know who Hillary is. I know who Gore is. I know who Huckabee is. I significantly don't like fence sitters like McCain who can't seem to take a firm stance either way.

As to the war in Iraq, it happened and is still happening. So, who cares about debating the past.
The future is about a successful or at least workable solution that allows the Iraqis to run their own country without us. We are obligated to play a role in preventing a chaotic collapse. We would suffer great security loss if we leave Iraq ungoverned because then Iran would take over. Think about that. If we aren't there and we have left a shadow of a democracy (which favors Shiites by numbers), then Iran is in control because they are Shia. Who is going to prevent that if we are not there?
Do you want to move Iran's significant military capability into Iraq next to Syria? Do you want Turkey to fight in North Iraq (which they will because they hate the Kurds and can't afford for the Kurds to gain a permanent autonomy)? If we step out and hand Iraq to Iran (which is exactly what would happen), then Russia gains control in the area to our loss (Iran's largest ally next to China, guess where the economy/oil will go). How do you maintain protection of Israel (most significant US ally next to Britain, great military significance, great security significance to Europe)?

The only reason politicians are talking about pulling troops out "now" and not funding the war is because they want to make you happy and get your vote. Do you remember earlier when the Republicans got tired of constant complaints like this and put it up to an official vote to then entire House of Reps? The vote was for or against immediate removal of US forces from Iraq. The vote was only 2 for leaving and every single other US representative voted against leaving.

Get a clue. The noise in Washington is only smoke. They want your ignorant vote. Use your brain.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

"rather transparent rationalization"

I presume that you are indicating that I am clearly a WASP (white anglosaxon protestant) and political conservative and that I am rationalizing my support for the current administration.

this was the furthest thing from my mind....I was saying nothing more than exactly what I said -- often a politician's primary motivation is in preserving his or her power.

beyond that, you basically lost me when you started giving me a rundown on the various colors of your family.

cheers

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

this was the furthest thing from my mind....I was saying nothing more than exactly what I said -- often a politician's primary motivation is in preserving his or her power.

beyond that, you basically lost me when you started giving me a rundown on the various colors of your family.

cheers

sorry for my quick assumption. Machiavelli supported both theories:
1)politicians do what keeps them in power
2)politicians do what needs to be done to meet the goals of government which are security, economics, and stability

Machiavelli taught that politicians should lie, manipulate, assasinate, etc. in order to meet their goals and that such an approach was the best thing for a nation...

Not a nice fellow.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

sorry for my quick assumption. Machiavelli supported both theories:
1)politicians do what keeps them in power
2)politicians do what needs to be done to meet the goals of government which are security, economics, and stability.

and my point was that machiavelli was off the mark a bit....it's true that politicians do what keeps them in power--staying in power IS the goal of government....security, economics and stability are some of the ostensible goals that politicians talk about 'to appease the people'....these are things they talk about because they want (*ahem*) "your ignorant vote", not because these are inherently goals of government.

cheers

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

and my point was that machiavelli was off the mark a bit....it's true that politicians do what keeps them in power--staying in power IS the goal of government....security, economics and stability are some of the ostensible goals that politicians talk about 'to appease the people'....these are things they talk about because they want (*ahem*) "your ignorant vote", not because these are inherently goals of government.

cheers

That is basically what I meant by the first theory wherein I said that Machiavelli taught that politicians (princes) should do what they have to do to stay in power.

And, so, after all of that, we are sitting here in agreement...

By the way, it is quite fun to talk to a good African American man (my brother in law) who is also Catholic and votes the straight Democratic line. He has so many inconsistencies between the Catholic Church and the Democratic platform. I have a lot of fun discussing politics with him. We get along great and the discussion is always amicable.

Hope I didn't offend you by misrepresenting your earlier intention/meaning.

I'm neither Republican or Democrat. I don't think George W. Bush compares well mentally (as to his capability) with any president in my lifetime. But, he might be in the same group as Jimmy Carter when it comes down to honesty. I don't think Bush lied about the intelligence on Iraq. He may have been lied to (and may have been too slow to figure out he was lied to) but I don't think he lied to us about what he thought was going on.
Carter and George W. are about as far opposite in their views as imaginable, but at least both seem honest. Neither agreed with Machiavelli if they studied his work.

I'd rather have an honest person with limited abilities than a lying genius. Machiavelli would support the lying genius.

I'm sure a lot of people think George W. lied. I think he was lied to and told us what he honestly thought the truth was. We'll never know for sure.

[wmbwinn]

Purplefrog has a signature line that states,

"With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions."- Abraham Lincoln

Appears that Honest Abe agrees with the issue that shaping image/thought/expectation is the mark of successful politics.

Difference in Abe and Machiavelli is that Abe shaped thought with honest debate and rational. Machiavelli (and many politicians) do it with lies.

[wmbwinn]

In a conference call with reporters, Obama sought to squelch the accusations — raised by the campaign of his chief rival for the nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton — saying his Senate votes to continue funding the conflict don't contradict his long-standing opposition to it.

"Once we were in, we were going to have some responsibility to try to make it work as best we can. More importantly, you make sure the troops are supported," the Illinois senator said. "I don't think there's any contradiction there whatsoever. We should not get in, once we were in we had to make the best of a bad situation."

Earlier in the day on the Senate floor, Obama reminded colleagues of a speech he gave in 2002 warning of grave consequences if the U.S. invaded Iraq.

It was the latest flare-up in an escalating spat with Clinton, who is under fire from many Democratic activists for her 2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq and whose lead in political polls is being eroded by Obama.

Clinton's lead strategist, Mark Penn, told an audience this week that Obama's votes on the war since he arrived in the Senate in 2005 had been identical to Clinton's.

With both candidates' credibility on the line, Obama said he wanted to make his record clear.

Obama has cast his early and forceful opposition to the war as a key test of presidential leadership and judgment. The Clinton team recently began openly challenging his claim of political purity and authenticity on the volatile issue.

Beneath the squabble lay an acute recognition of the depth of voter anger over Iraq, especially among Democratic primary voters.

Polling shows most Americans now decisively oppose the war, but the figure is much higher among Democrats. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken last month found that 61 percent of the public now believe the war was a mistake; among Democrats, it was 91 percent.

"Iraq is the issue that is first among equals right now, and these candidates are under incredible pressure from party activists to talk about it in a detailed way," Democratic strategist Erik Smith said. "Obama is trying to be the insurgent candidate on the war, while the Clinton campaign is trying to level the playing field and change the frame of the debate."

On the presidential campaign trail, without naming names, Obama jabs at rivals who voted in favor of the invasion.

"I am proud of the fact that I opposed this war from the start," Obama said to huge cheers at a rally Saturday in Oakland, Calif., "that I stood up in 2002 and said this is a bad idea. This is going to cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives."

Clinton, meanwhile, has refused to repudiate her vote but has harshly criticized the conduct of the war, saying "if we knew then what we know now" she never would have voted as she did.

Clinton advisers insist that voters care more about ending the Iraq conflict than revisiting how it started. In recent months, Clinton has sponsored legislation capping troop levels and has spoken in detail of how she would resolve the conflict as president.

Still, the Clinton camp — keenly aware of Obama's increasing popularity among Democrats — has become more aggressive in challenging his careful positioning on the war. The first signs of a new strategy trickled out late last week, when former President Clinton was quoted in a New York tabloid gossip column complaining that not enough attention had been paid to Obama's Senate votes on Iraq.

At a Harvard University forum Monday, Penn answered a question by bringing up Obama's Senate record. He said Obama, like Clinton, has voted for spending bills to continue funding the war. And like Clinton, he opposed an amendment sponsored by Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry last year that would have set a July 1, 2007, deadline for withdrawing troops.

"When they got to the Senate, Senator Obama's votes were exactly the same," Penn said.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I stole the above from an article quoted on the presidential debate thread.

This basically re-states exactly what I said before.
1)These Democrats voted for the war including Obama
2)These Democrats don't intend to withdraw funding including Obama
3)These Democrats may talk about withdrawing troops but they are backpedalling and admitting that they can't just leave Iraq.
4)These Democrats are finally sitting down and actually talking about strategy and plans to succeed in Iraq and at least leave a workable solution there for our security and that of Europe and the Middle East.
5)Politics is all impression and lies (partial truths).

Obama is among the leading candidates to say things like the "war is wrong" and "we should withdraw" and "we have to reign in this president". But, Obama is not going to withdraw the troops until we are successful (and all of you that think that will happen by 2008 need to take the joint away from your mouth). Obama is not going to withdraw funding. And, no one knows what Obama and Hillary have planned for a strategy that is substantially different than what Bush and the military planners are already working on.

The Democrats are just capitalizing on American emotion to win elections. The cost is that our enemies read the news also and they are as dumb as us to believe that US politicians actually intend to withdraw troops or reduce spending or take any other measure that might cause an outcome that is short of at least workable and at best a surprising success.

Nothing accomplished except deluding Americans, embrazening our enemies, demoralizing our troops, confusing our Iraqi allies, emboldening Iran, angering Russia, straining our alliance with Britain, scaring our Israeli allies, losing influence in Turkey, irritating Saudi Arabia (sunni), increasing the military planning of Lebanese and Syrian and Iranian generals, and increasing the liklihood of our failure.

All to win an election...