Democrats defy Pelosi, elect Hoyer House leader

[Luke T.]

Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&symbol=&storyID=2006-11-16T165944Z_01_N16319060_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-CONGRESS-LEADERS-HOYER.xml&WTmodLoc=InvArt-C2-NextArticle-1)


Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68719).

In that topic, I described how Nancy Pelosi (heir apparent to the Speaker throne) was backing Murtha as House Majority leader, despite his questionable ethics. The apparent reason for her backing Murtha is because he supports a rapid withdrawal from Iraq like she does.

Hoyer does not support a rapid withdrawal.

So the "cut and run" wagon's momentum driven by Pelosi in the House and Levin on the Senate Armed Services committee has just had a pole thrown in the spokes.

This does not bode well for the Dems in light of the nearly universal opinion that this last election was primarily all about Iraq.

[hgc]

So the "cut and run" wagon's momentum driven by Pelosi in the House and Levin on the Senate Armed Services committee has just had a pole thrown in the spokes.

This does not bode well for the Dems in light of the nearly universal opinion that this last election was primarily all about Iraq.
I have a question: After the Iraq Study Group gives its imprimatur to a withdrawal from Iraq, will it still be called "cut and run?"

[Luke T.]

I have a question: After the Iraq Study Group gives its imprimatur to a withdrawal from Iraq, will it still be called "cut and run?"

Levin is calling for a withdrawl from Iraq in four to six months from now. Whether the Iraqi government is ready or not. That is about as "cut and run" as it gets.

Hoyer is taking the more moderate position that we should not be so hasty to exit Iraq, and to examine the possibility of staying and stabilizing Iraq. The very same questions the ISG is trying to answer.

If the ISG comes out and says, "Yeah, let's bail yesterday" then yes, it will still be called "cut and run".

But I doubt the ISG is going to go with Levin's (and Pelosi's?) plan.

[Luke T.]

I also think there is too much faith being placed on whatever it is the ISG is going to come up with. It's like the masses waiting for Moses to come down from the mountain and deciding to build a golden calf instead.

If the ISG plan depends on some kind of help from Iran and/or Syria, then it is a pipe dream.

My bet is that it will be a giant waffling piece of crap with unrealistic recommendations that will be rejected by both sides of the aisle. People will cherry pick data/suggestions according to their already preconceived golden sacred cows.

[hgc]

Hey, I want to talk a lot more about the ISG, but I guess this isn't the right thread (and I don't have a lot of time). I'll start a new thread to kick it off.

[pgwenthold]

Levin is calling for a withdrawl from Iraq in four to six months from now. Whether the Iraqi government is ready or not. That is about as "cut and run" as it gets.



How so? They aren't calling for a complete withdrawl, are they?

No, just a reduction in force.

I compared it in a previous thread to teaching a child to ride a bike. At sometime, you take the training wheels off, and ask them to try things on their own. You don't leave them completely on their own, and you take your hands off here and there. They might tip over, and man, when they do, they hate you for it, and they have trouble trusting you as much as they did. But in the end, they learn faster how to ride on their own.

That's not cutting and running. That is cutting back the support you are giving, but it is not running at all. Cutting and running is taking off the training wheels and then going in to have a beer, while they try to ride on their own.

A reduction in force is more like the first. Yes, there might be some lumps, and they might get mad at us for some of it, but in the end, it is the fastest way to learn.

You don't teach a person to ride a bike by leaving the training wheels on until you are absolutely convinced that they can ride on their own without any problems. And you don't do it by just taking their training wheels away and then ignoring them. You have to take their training wheels away, but still be there to help guide them, knowing that unless they haven't crashed a little, you haven't let them go on their own enough.

Suddenly, they are riding down the sidewalk on their own, not realizing they are doing it without your help. That's when you step aside.

A RIF is not the same as cutting and running.

[Unabogie]

Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&symbol=&storyID=2006-11-16T165944Z_01_N16319060_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-CONGRESS-LEADERS-HOYER.xml&WTmodLoc=InvArt-C2-NextArticle-1)


Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68719).

In that topic, I described how Nancy Pelosi (heir apparent to the Speaker throne) was backing Murtha as House Majority leader, despite his questionable ethics. The apparent reason for her backing Murtha is because he supports a rapid withdrawal from Iraq like she does.


Far be it from me to introduce facts into your mythology, but the reason Pelosi supported Murtha is that in addition to his stance on Iraq and the CW that Murtha started the wave that led to other Democrats feeling emboldened to challenge the War-supporters openly, the main reason is that Murtha is the person who got Pelosi her start in politics and gave her support in getting her post as Minority Whip, and she felt she owed him her support in return.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=56989

Furthermore, no one "defied" Pelosi in that she did not exhort anyone to follow suit, but simply stated her choice in a letter.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011073.php

Hoyer, who just won, said this before the vote:

"Nancy told me some time ago that she would personally support Jack. I respect her decision as the two are very close. "I am grateful for the support I have from my colleagues, and have the majority of the caucus supporting me. I look forward to working with Speaker Pelosi as Majority Leader."


Yep. Sounds like those Dems are going ballistic, eh?

;)

[Ziggurat]

I have little respect for Pelosi, but I have no reason to assume any particular motives for her support for Murtha. But regardless of her reasons, it was a bad choice, and I'm glad to see that the dems went with the more sensible choice. Now let's hope Pelosi doesn't make Hastings the chair of the intelligence committee.

[Unabogie]

I have little respect for Pelosi, but I have no reason to assume any particular motives for her support for Murtha. But regardless of her reasons, it was a bad choice, and I'm glad to see that the dems went with the more sensible choice. Now let's hope Pelosi doesn't make Hastings the chair of the intelligence committee.

I think the OP is just used to watching the Republicans in power act as "the Hammer" and can't understand how a group people can disagree without resorting to bribery, extortion, or violence to resolve differences.

Different strokes, I guess.

[LawnOven]

I have little respect for Pelosi...

why?

[Darth Rotor]

A RIF is not the same as cutting and running.
True enough, but you know it will be spun as such in some circles. :p I'll point to General Abizaid's remarks of yesterday on his advice to Congress that a reduction at present isn't going to help him accomplish his mission, and that an increase in troops is not the answer to the problem. What he was kind enough not to note is that patience is hardly a virtue in the political arena. There is, in some circles, a perceived need to make some bold move that "solves this intractable problem." Some problems do not lend themselves to simple solutions, and some have a menu of sub optimal, or imperfect, solution sets. And some problems can't be "solved."

DR

[wastepanel]

To refute of the "cut and run" strategy:

Begging the Question. This is a kind of a rhetorical shell game. You subtly shift the subject in question, or the argument of the opponent, to something related but easily refuted. This is also known as petitio principii. In essence, you begin with a false premise, such as all liberals want us to pull out of Iraq, and from the false premise you derive logical and sound conclusions. I cannot emphasize how common this is--in the media, among political strategists of all sides, and those who make very eloquent arguments against my books by beginning with premises I had never iterated. (Robert Greene--False Arguments)

I think that most educated people do not like how Iraq is being handled. The new Congress is calling for more oversight on the awards of no-bid constracts and other basic oversight responsibilities that have been neglected.

Sure, the Democrats can pull all of the troops out of Iraq (and got the President to agree with them). But it would be political suicide if that country was immediately taken over by forces we were not comfortable. In fact, the 2008 election would be over at the moment footage was released to the media.

[Ziggurat]

why?

Because she's given me a number of reasons (including her support for Murtha) to question her judgment, and no reason so far to think that she'll make any positive impact.

[Darth Rotor]

Because she's given me a number of reasons (including her support for Murtha) to question her judgment, and no reason so far to think that she'll make any positive impact.
While not a huge fan of Granny Pelosi, I think folks are rushing to judgment here. She's been on top now for what, a week? Let's give her some time to show us what she and her team will do with their new position.

She's got all the rope, she'll either weave a lovely knot from it or hang herself.

I for one am willing to wait and see how things play out.

DR

[Luke T.]

How so? They aren't calling for a complete withdrawl, are they?

No, just a reduction in force.

I compared it in a previous thread to teaching a child to ride a bike. At sometime, you take the training wheels off, and ask them to try things on their own. You don't leave them completely on their own, and you take your hands off here and there. They might tip over, and man, when they do, they hate you for it, and they have trouble trusting you as much as they did. But in the end, they learn faster how to ride on their own.

That's not cutting and running. That is cutting back the support you are giving, but it is not running at all. Cutting and running is taking off the training wheels and then going in to have a beer, while they try to ride on their own.

A reduction in force is more like the first. Yes, there might be some lumps, and they might get mad at us for some of it, but in the end, it is the fastest way to learn.

You don't teach a person to ride a bike by leaving the training wheels on until you are absolutely convinced that they can ride on their own without any problems. And you don't do it by just taking their training wheels away and then ignoring them. You have to take their training wheels away, but still be there to help guide them, knowing that unless they haven't crashed a little, you haven't let them go on their own enough.

Suddenly, they are riding down the sidewalk on their own, not realizing they are doing it without your help. That's when you step aside.

A RIF is not the same as cutting and running.

So let's take your analogy, which is similar to the argument Levin is using, and run with it.

Let's say you take the training wheels off, and someone comes along and pushes the kid off his bike and steals it.

What are the chances the Democrats will run the bully off and help the kid get his bike back?

Do you seriously think that the Dems will send troops back in once they pull them out?

If it turns out we took the training wheels off too soon, what do you think will happen?

I think the Dems will have a beer.

[Luke T.]

I think the OP is just used to watching the Republicans in power act as "the Hammer" and can't understand how a group people can disagree without resorting to bribery, extortion, or violence to resolve differences.

Different strokes, I guess.

Anyone who believes the Democrats are immune to all of the above must have been born yesterday.

[Tony]

why?

Because there isn't an R next to her name.

[LawnOven]

Because she's given me a number of reasons (including her support for Murtha) to question her judgment, and no reason so far to think that she'll make any positive impact.

Please, can you list some of those "number of reasons" you talk about?

[Ziggurat]

Because there isn't an R next to her name.

I rather explicitly avoided attributing any particular motive to Pelosi's actions, in contrast to a previous poster who assumed negative connotations for them. I did so because I cannot evaluate them with any honesty. I can only disagree with the actions themselves. Likewise, you cannot evaluate with any honesty why it is I don't like Pelosi. But you didn't merely decide whether or not you agree with my opinion of her (which you are free to do), you instead assume a malign motive on my part. Why? I can't honestly say - I'd have to assume a motive on your part, and I'm not interested in playing that game. But your action itself is quite pathetic enough.

[wastepanel]

So let's take your analogy, which is similar to the argument Levin is using, and run with it.

Let's say you take the training wheels off, and someone comes along and pushes the kid off his bike and steals it.

What are the chances the Democrats will run the bully off and help the kid get his bike back?

Do you seriously think that the Dems will send troops back in once they pull them out?

If it turns out we took the training wheels off too soon, what do you think will happen?

I think the Dems will have a beer.

I think you're wrong.

If that is the case, I'll be very surprised if the rest of the world would not join us in that scenerio. Why did we go to Iraq in the first place (90s)? We went to protect Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We were joined by the rest of the world, and (as I recall) Bush Sr. was applauded for his great foreign policy.

I take issue in the cowboy mentality we took in entering Iraq. We bullied our allies into supporting us or being branded cowards. We ignored other country's pleas because "we were right". We made our bed, now we have to lie in it.

Hopefully, if this scenerio you describe does take place, our political leaders will work together instead of lobbying deaths for political gain.

[Ziggurat]

Please, can you list some of those "number of reasons" you talk about?

One of the more immediate concerns in that regards is her possible nomination of Alcee Hastings, the former judge who was overwhelmingly impeached by a Democratic congress, to the position of head of the intelligence committee. It would be quite shameful if she goes ahead with that, which she's essentially suggested by indicating she doesn't want Harman in that position (Hastings is next in line in seniority on the committee).

I also think she either doesn't know what she's talking about in regards to terrorism and defense issues, or doesn't take the issue seriously enough to be honest about it. On this point I'm sure I'm not in agreement with many other posters here, because many other posters here don't share my opinions about those topics.

[LawnOven]

One of the more immediate concerns in that regards is her possible nomination of Alcee Hastings, the former judge who was overwhelmingly impeached by a Democratic congress, to the position of head of the intelligence committee. It would be quite shameful if she goes ahead with that, which she's essentially suggested by indicating she doesn't want Harman in that position (Hastings is next in line in seniority on the committee).

I also think she either doesn't know what she's talking about in regards to terrorism and defense issues, or doesn't take the issue seriously enough to be honest about it. On this point I'm sure I'm not in agreement with many other posters here, because many other posters here don't share my opinions about those topics.

You're right, it would be shameful if she nominated him.

But, are you sure that is not just a rumor? Has she actually said that she is considering Alcee Hastings for that position?

Seems harsh to judge someone on something they might maybe do accourding to some sources, in the future.

In regards to your feeling that "she ...doesn't know what she's talking about in regards to terrorism", can you elaborate that sentiment in a way which may give a person the impression that you do? :)

The reason I am so curious I guess, is because it seems like it has always been really fashionable, if you are a Republican, to hate Nancy Pelosi whether you have good reason to or not. It just looks like a bunch of Republican demagoguery.

I mean, you can't tell me the Republicans have exactly been geniuses in regards to terrorism over the past 6 years. So what makes Pelosi's opinions any more or less valid to the point of having "little respect" for her?

[Beerina]

I think the OP is just used to watching the Republicans in power act as "the Hammer" and can't understand how a group people can disagree without resorting to bribery, extortion, or violence to resolve differences.

Different strokes, I guess.

Just be glad she even made it to speaker. I hate to be cynical, but now that they have power, her utility as a star starts to evaporate as a bunch of old white men realize they need to grasp the brass ring or forever hold their peace. And there ain't gonna be any peace in the quest for power. This ain't a movie, it's reality. They want it, now.

[Luke T.]

I think you're wrong.

I hope you are right. :)

[Ziggurat]

Seems harsh to judge someone on something they might maybe do accourding to some sources, in the future.

Sure, that's a possibility. But considering that at the moment, my judgment of her is of no consequence (even if I was in her district, the next election is quite some distance off), I'm OK with taking the risk of jumping to conclusions.

In regards to your feeling that "she ...doesn't know what she's talking about in regards to terrorism", can you elaborate that sentiment in a way which may give a person the impression that you do? :)

Not without starting a new thread. :(

The reason I am so curious I guess, is because it seems like it has always been really fashionable, if you are a Republican, to hate Nancy Pelosi whether you have good reason to or not. It just looks like a bunch of Republican demagoguery.

Oh, there's definitely that going on too: it exists regarding both parties' leadership, even when there's legitimate grievances. But do you actually know if I myself am Republican?

I mean, you can't tell me the Republicans have exactly been geniuses in regards to terrorism over the past 6 years. So what makes Pelosi's opinions any more or less valid to the point of having "little respect" for her?

Geniuses? No, they certainly aren't - and if you go back farther than 6 years, you can even find considerable blame among republicans for failed policies and missed opportunities. But since 9/11, Republicans in general have been more willing to advocate proactive responses to the Islamic terrorist threat than Democrats in general have. There are noteable exceptions, of course (Leiberman springs to mind, and I'm VERY glad he got re-elected), but that's the general trend I see.

[hgc]

Geniuses? No, they certainly aren't - and if you go back farther than 6 years, you can even find considerable blame among republicans for failed policies and missed opportunities. But since 9/11, Republicans in general have been more willing to advocate proactive responses to the Islamic terrorist threat than Democrats in general have. There are noteable exceptions, of course (Leiberman springs to mind, and I'm VERY glad he got re-elected), but that's the general trend I see.
When you say something like, "in general have been more willing to advocate proactive responses to the Islamic terrorist threat," it's pretty fuzzy in meaning and loaded with equivocation. I prefer to look at actual policy decisions and their effect. The Republicans and their pet Lieberman chose to do the Iraq War. This decision has had the most deletrious effect imaginable in terms of "responses to the Islamic terrorist threat."

[Renfield]

Looks like the Dems control of congress could be short lived.

they are already backing down on an anti war stance. The whole, we need to stabalize things before we can leave, baffles me. Its basically the same thing Bush has been saying, really, as far as I can tell.

[WildCat]

We were joined by the rest of the world, and (as I recall) Bush Sr. was applauded for his great foreign policy.
Which led directly to the rise of al Qaeda and 9/11. Is anybody applauding that?

[Darth Rotor]

Looks like the Dems control of congress could be short lived.

they are already backing down on an anti war stance. The whole, we need to stabalize things before we can leave, baffles me. Its basically the same thing Bush has been saying, really, as far as I can tell.
May I yet again observe that

We are only at week 1.5 of a two year (104 week) new leadership mode in the House and Senate?

Let's not break our necks leaping to conclusions.

Jefferson wept.

DR

[pgwenthold]

True enough, but you know it will be spun as such in some circles. :p


What do you mean "in some circles"? That is exactly how Luke characterized it in the post I responded to.


I'll point to General Abizaid's remarks of yesterday on his advice to Congress that a reduction at present isn't going to help him accomplish his mission, and that an increase in troops is not the answer to the problem. What he was kind enough not to note is that patience is hardly a virtue in the political arena. There is, in some circles, a perceived need to make some bold move that "solves this intractable problem." Some problems do not lend themselves to simple solutions, and some have a menu of sub optimal, or imperfect, solution sets. And some problems can't be "solved."


One of the things I wonder about the general's comment, though, is what does he think his mission is? If he has been instructed that his mission is to keep the training wheels on until he can know for certain that Iraq will not wobble when they are removed, then I agree with him, a RIF is not going to help him. But if his mission is actually defined as getting on with it, and getting out, than an RIF could easily accomplish that mission. I suspect it is closer to the former, because that has been the position of the commander-in-chief. A good soldier should respond in the manner he did.

Now, I haven't heard any of the democrats make the argument I have for reducing the force, but they should. It gets us out of Iraq without any issues of "cutting and running." However, it needs to be made the policy, and the commander has to order it.

[wastepanel]

Which led directly to the rise of al Qaeda and 9/11. Is anybody applauding that?

That is actually incorrect (when discussing the Persian Gulf War).:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda

The origins of the group can be traced to a few weeks after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, when a cadre of foreign Arab Mujahideen, financed by bin Laden and independent wealthy Muslim contributors, joined the fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The U.S. viewed the conflict in Afghanistan as an integral Cold War struggle, and the CIA provided assistance to anti-Soviet forces through the Pakistani ISI. The U.S. took advantage of this militant group's ambitions and bred them to suit their needs. However, such support was limited to the indigenous Afghan mujahideen [2]. Bin Laden's organization channeled Arab mujahideen to the conflict, distributing money and providing logistical skills and resources to guerrillas as well as Afghan refugees.

The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.[4]

[Darth Rotor]

What do you mean "in some circles"? That is exactly how Luke characterized it in the post I responded to.
I am guessing that some of the Faux News Shills will so characterize such a move, and the folks who advocate gutting it out in Iraq until victory is achieved. People like Charles Krauthammer come to mind.

Pick a pundit.

A guy like Joe Galloway is less likely to so characterize a RIF. Ralph Peters' seems to be an advocate of an RoE tailored to "Peace Through Superior Firepower."

General Batiste's last editorial, in the Miami Herald, advocated more troops, and a more aggressive stance toward SASO than the current force levels allow.
One of the things I wonder about the general's comment, though, is what does he think his mission is? If he has been instructed that his mission is to keep the training wheels on until he can know for certain that Iraq will not wobble when they are removed, then I agree with him, a RIF is not going to help him. But if his mission is actually defined as getting on with it, and getting out, than an RIF could easily accomplish that mission. I suspect it is closer to the former, because that has been the position of the commander-in-chief. A good soldier should respond in the manner he did.
I don't know (I am a bit out of the loop, moreso as time goes on) but I had not heard that SASO has been changed to phased withdrawal. To use your phrase, I think the mission is still training wheels mode, with targets of opportunity taken down when found, or appropriate.
Now, I haven't heard any of the democrats make the argument I have for reducing the force, but they should. It gets us out of Iraq without any issues of "cutting and running." However, it needs to be made the policy, and the commander has to order it.
Operations are the duty of the executive. Congress must be briefed, as they fund the operations. The core mode of control in Congress, at this point, is a clear message that the funding spigot is going to be turned down, and then off. "No unlimited funding." I think a game of bluff and counter bluff will go on, Between Oval Office and Capitol Hill, over those points for the next few months before any plan, or change in plan, is either ordered or implemented.

DR

[pgwenthold]

So let's take your analogy, which is similar to the argument Levin is using, and run with it.

Let's say you take the training wheels off, and someone comes along and pushes the kid off his bike and steals it.

What are the chances the Democrats will run the bully off and help the kid get his bike back?

Do you seriously think that the Dems will send troops back in once they pull them out?


Yes, I think they would.

Actually, not exactly. I think they would be able to create a UN coalition to do it.

If a bully is knocking your child over on his bike, you don't solve the problem by going back to training wheels. You go after the bully, and you enlist the help of friends and neighbors.

This is why the US would be wise to make it very clear what they are going to do. They are going to start doing a RIF and are going to expect the Iraqis to start standing up on their own. I think the national community would be supportive, such that if the bully comes around, they will chase him away.

Whatever you do, you don't let the possibility that your kid might run into a bully prevent you from removing the training wheels. "Don't you think it's time to take off the training wheels?" "But what happens if he runs into a bully?" "Then we will deal with the bully, but without the training wheels."

So it starts getting into more of a civil war. Who is the bully?

[Ziggurat]

When you say something like, "in general have been more willing to advocate proactive responses to the Islamic terrorist threat," it's pretty fuzzy in meaning and loaded with equivocation.

Sure. That's because I didn't really intend to sidetrack this thread. I was trying, intentionally, to form a minimalist response regarding why I didn't like Pelosi because that wasn't really the point of the thread.

I prefer to look at actual policy decisions and their effect. The Republicans and their pet Lieberman chose to do the Iraq War. This decision has had the most deletrious effect imaginable in terms of "responses to the Islamic terrorist threat."

First off, if ANYTHING about our current situation is the worst thing you can imagine, well, you really don't have much imagination. It can always get worse.

And second, I'm afraid I don't even agree that it's had a very deleterious effect. Which is part of why I have a low opinion of Pelosi. You don't agree with me, and quite naturally that leads to your low opinion of Bush. Which is fair enough, but there it is.

[Luke T.]

Yes, I think they would.

Actually, not exactly. I think they would be able to create a UN coalition to do it.

I've mentioned in other topics that after we pull out, it is probably inevitable the UN will get sucked in. I can hear it now, "So you want us to clean up your mess, eh?"

But I agree that the Dems would go that route. Try to get UN/coalition support in Iraq after we pull out and if/when things go to hell in a handbasket afterwards. Or at least that will be their platform through 2008 when asked, the cynical side of me says.

[LawnOven]

Sure, that's a possibility....but that's the general trend I see.

Haha, you know, I think I still have questions to ask and/or comments to make, but at this point it would probably be a complete derail from the thread topic.

So instead, I thank you for giving me honest answers to my questions. :)

[Unabogie]

Anyone who believes the Democrats are immune to all of the above must have been born yesterday.

That's an insult to people born yesterday, but I'll let it slide. :)

Seriously, though, I took issue with your talking point-like OP wherein you describe the vote today as "defiance" and then proclaim to know the inner working's of Pelosi's brain and why she backed Murtha, especially since you were so wrong about it.

In the context of the right wing's constant attempt to grab hold of the spin on last week's elections, please forgive me if your melodramatic post about the "revolt" in the house elicits little more than a yawn from me. The Republicans are trying desperately to push two memes. One is that the Democrats are collapsing immediately into infighting, and two, that they have "no plan".

So next up, we have the Harmon/Hastings debate and if Pelosi backs Hastings, then Democrats should worry if he loses? Once again, this evokes the Tom Delay model where Congressmen were arm-twisted into horrible decisions (even including attempted bribery (http://www.slate.com/id/2107623/)).

I am pleased as punch that Democrats have healthy debates free of Tom Delay's style of "leadership".

[Sandy M]

Feh. I have to agree with a local columnist's piece man months (may have been been a year) ago, where he basically said, we have two choices: "Pull out now, and watch Iraq descend into chaos.....or stay another year, or two, or.... then pull out and watch Iraq descend into chaos."

[Luke T.]

Far be it from me to introduce facts into your mythology, but the reason Pelosi supported Murtha is that in addition to his stance on Iraq and the CW that Murtha started the wave that led to other Democrats feeling emboldened to challenge the War-supporters openly, the main reason is that Murtha is the person who got Pelosi her start in politics and gave her support in getting her post as Minority Whip, and she felt she owed him her support in return.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=56989

Okay. So to back up your attack on my supposed mythology that Pelosi backed Murtha for his Iraq position, you link to a blog which makes its own guess about Pelosi's motives for backing Murtha. And then you ironically accuse me in this next post of proclaiming to know the inner workings of Pelosi's brain:


Seriously, though, I took issue with your talking point-like OP wherein you describe the vote today as "defiance" and then proclaim to know the inner working's of Pelosi's brain and why she backed Murtha, especially since you were so wrong about it.

(ETA: In your own link in your post attacking my mind reading, it says, "Here's a milder interpretation"...)

You may have noticed in my post that you are attacking that I linked to an earlier topic. And in the OP in that topic, I linked to a Washington Post article. I don't think the Washington Post falls into the category of:

The Republicans are trying desperately to push two memes.

So, for your benefit, I will now back up my proclamation of knowing the inner workings of Pelosi's brain while simultaneously supporting my alleged mythology in one fell swoop:

Pelosi said in her letter that she was swayed to endorse Murtha, a longtime ally, by his early call for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

In Backing Murtha, Pelosi Draws Fire (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/13/AR2006111300722.html)

One is that the Democrats are collapsing immediately into infighting

If you read the Wash. Post article, that is exactly what is happening.

ETA:
and two, that they have "no plan".

That is not a "meme" being pushed by me. I have mentioned several times on here that Levin is pushing for a withdrawal in the next four to six months. And by choosing Murtha for his call for early withdrawal, Pelosi seems to have the same plan.

[EBU]

Do you seriously think that the Dems will send troops back in once they pull them out?



Do you mean to imply that President Bush no longer has any say about sending troops to Iraq?

[Luke T.]

Do you mean to imply that President Bush no longer has any say about sending troops to Iraq?

As Commander in Chief, he does, but in this NPR interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6482564), Carl Levin (who is set to become the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee), when asked how he planned on pressuring Bush to start withdrawing troops in four to six months, discusses Congress' "power of the purse" and the mandate of the American people on Iraq in the recent elections.

[Darth Rotor]

and the mandate of the American people on Iraq in the recent elections.
Uh, that wasn't on the ballot. We had loads of resolutions on our ballot down here in Texas, but the war on Iraq wasn't one of them.

Methinks the Distinguished Gentleman from Wherever is exercising a bit of hyperbole.

DR

[LawnOven]

Uh, that wasn't on the ballot. We had loads of resolutions on our ballot down here in Texas, but the war on Iraq wasn't one of them.

Methinks the Distinguished Gentleman from Wherever is exercising a bit of hyperbole.

DR

It was on the ballot here. :)

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/15388 (I don't know the reliability of this source in regards to numbers, it was just the only one I could find)



Edit: Actually this may be better, it's the above sites primary source: http://www.wnpj.org/homenow

The Midwest has spoken.

[pgwenthold]

I've mentioned in other topics that after we pull out, it is probably inevitable the UN will get sucked in. I can hear it now, "So you want us to clean up your mess, eh?"

Why do you assume that there will be a mess?

You are STILL making the "cut and run" assumption. You apparently haven't understood a word I said.

We have, what, 140K troops in Iraq right now? How overrun with bullies will it be if we cut back to 120K in 4 months? You keep acting like if we cut back our troops that much that the country will be overrun by the Taliban or something. Seriously, if the Iraqis can't handle that much of security by now, then we have failed miserably, and we SHOULD get someone in there to clean up our mess.

We aren't sending the kid out on the bike by themselves. We are still holding on to them, holding them up. Just take off the friggin training wheels, and tell them, look, you are going to have to do something on your own because we aren't going to carry you anymore.

OTOH, given that the Iraqi people have stated so dang clearly that they want us to leave immediately, the assumption that it will fall to pieces is far from justified. By backing off, it could just as easily clean itself up to an extent.

If they don't have some strife, then we haven't given them enough freedom to try it on their own.