home

How About In 2009?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:14:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Atrios, Nancy Pelosi's 2007 promise to have us out of Iraq in 2008:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi predicted Thursday that there would be “a drastic reduction in troops” in Iraq by the middle of 2008, saying Democratic opposition to the war had “changed the debate on Iraq in our country.” In an interview airing Friday on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Pelosi, D-Calif., told host Chris Matthews that while Democrats may have failed for now to force President Bush to agree to a timetable to withdraw U.S. troops, their agitation for disengagement from Iraq had backed the president into a corner.

Let me be clear - the Democratic Party has not succeeded, the Republican Party has failed. The current Congress is a travesty. And "grassroots, progressive activists" have gone along and continue to go along for the ride. I for one will NOT shut up. Go try that nonsense on someone else.

Speaking for me only

< Will Covert Operations Lead to Overt Military Attacks Against Iran? | Why Must Obama Not Rock The Boat? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    How About In 2009? | 21 comments (21 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:19:02 PM EST
    Although I don't know what the answer to that is.  They have conservative Democrats to appease, a president who waves the veto pen like a sword and a narrow edge in the Senate.

     Iraq I can understand.  Their ability to control the situation is virtually nonexistent.  It is the FISA capitulation that frustrates me.

    Democrats always had the power (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:20:13 PM EST
    to end the war, veto or not. Seriously, you don't want to rehash the 2007 discussion.

    Parent
    Your view (none / 0) (#4)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:26:56 PM EST
    Not my own.  

    Parent
    It is a view that is supported by institutional (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:30:22 PM EST
    facts.

    It might not have been comfortable, but their purse power made it true.

    Parent

    THEY CAN CUT OFF FUNDING (none / 0) (#18)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:16:01 PM EST
    and it's over

    Parent
    You say again: (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:19:31 PM EST
    Speaking for me only

    In this case: WRONG.

    Meaning.... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:12:02 PM EST
    BTD speaks for many of us, I gather?


    Parent
    Democrats have not failed to end the war (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:31:11 PM EST
    Rather, it is simply a success that hasn't happened yet.

    Just give us more Democrats! (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:35:40 PM EST


    Parent
    i most sincerely hope that "just getting (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:21:35 PM EST
    more democrats" does improve the truly sorry performance by both three branches of government, though i have to say the less than stellar performance of dems in congress since 06 doesn't convince me.

    Parent
    Remember... (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:29:31 PM EST
    ... you try to end the war with the Congress you have, not the Congress you might want or wish to have at a later time.

    So far having a surge of Democrats hasn't helped.

    Parent

    That is because our surge of new (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:23:55 PM EST
    Democrats vote Republican on issues like Iraq and FISA.

    Parent
    We'll see (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Coldblue on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:32:30 PM EST
    if a presumptive Democratic executive branch will cure the problems of the Democratic majority congress on the debacle in Iraq.

    I tend to doubt it.

    Keep speaking out BTD.

    Seems the only ones backed into a (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:40:22 PM EST
    corner, are the dems.

    But but but (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by cawaltz on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:50:27 PM EST
    The poor wittle defense contractors would lose money if we left Iraq. We couldn't have that. Then who would pay for the political kabuki in Congress and fill the campaign coffers.

    BTD, you rock (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Prabhata on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:33:20 PM EST
    I'm so disgusted with the Democratic Party. It's clear that the Republicans and now the Democrats have self-destructed.  Looking at Gallup polls one sees that 6 percent of the voters are planning to vote for neither of the main candidates, while another 1 percent will vote for "other".  The Democrats should have had a cake walk, but McCain is a lucky man.

    The Mystery of the Spineless Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Lora on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:31:38 PM EST
    Possible theories:

    1) Deals with the Devil

    The Dems made a number of back-room deals to be able to push through a very small portion of their agenda, at the expense of unimportant stuff like the maiming and death of too many US soldiers; the death, displacement and misery of huge numbers of Iraqis; the US Constitution....you know, just fluff.

    2) Fear of the Rovian Attack Monster

    Step out of line, the man come, and take you away

    1. Some combination of the above

    2. Sheer Stupidity -- which I don't quite buy -- unless stupidity is contagious, or they are all suffering from collective lead poisoning like the Romans, or something.


    After seeing the votes (4.75 / 4) (#8)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:35:01 PM EST
    this week on Fisa, I am no longer convinced that the Dem's have any intent in leaving Iraq. They continue to shake in their boots at the thought of being weak. The whole premise of a "new progressive" agenda was just a smoke screen.

    Two theories: (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by magisterludi on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:03:07 PM EST
    1. The Viet Nam syndrome
    2. It's too good an issue to give up.

    Or, make it a combo.

    Parent
    I agree, especially after both Hillary and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by thereyougo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:47:48 PM EST
    said they want an ordered, safe (using all the qualifiers) troop reduction. There will be US presence and troops until the US gets what it wants out of Iraq. So I'm reading this to mean, no, we won't totally pull out of Iraq, especially after making the huge mess there.

    I liken it to building a house after a disaster demolished  it and leaving it half undone. Even if I was for withdrawal, it wouldn't be responsible to leave the country in shambles.

    Another indicator the US is not going to be outta there anytime soon is that the largest embassy in the world will be in Baghdad is in the final stages. It began 4 years ago and its almost done. A huge facility to house and employ 7000 people, I doubt its going to abandoned anytime soon.

    Parent

    Nancy Pelosi (none / 0) (#21)
    by Left of center on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:35:38 AM EST
    is a cardboard cutout of a paper tiger. The Republicans don't even take her seriously. Does she know any other political tactic than surrender? By the way, who made her speaker of the house in the first place? All of those Democrats in the house, and Nancy is the best fighter they could find? Seriously?

    How About In 2009? | 21 comments (21 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment