The president's pyrrhic victory

I agree with you, but even more importantly, the American people are obviously not going to accept a "non-funding" mechanism as an end to this. They're going to demand, I think, more straightforward action.
The idea of not funding the troops - whether you like the cause or not - puts the troops in an even worse position (in peoples' minds - not sure if actually true). Voters will not tolerate venting their anger on the military. Nor should they. By the way - has anyone noticed how the darling of the anti-war Dems John Murtha is faring lately? Look at his recent spittle-laced tirade and tell me you want to follow him ANYWHERE. The Democrats really need to sump Pelosi, recruit Steny Hoyer, and take their game up a notch.

In arguably related news, a bird crapped on the President today: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3209176

AB, that's as good a reason as any. We'll pray for you. I meant to comment earlier on the CBS/NYTimes poll; aside from the obvious, er, credibility problem, if Americans trust the Dems so much, why is Congress' approval rating WORSE than GWB's? There's a serious gap between those two things.

The President's stubbornness on the war and immigration don't serve him well in either case. I wish he was as stubborn in support of the war when he started it instead of trying to fight it with PC ROE. Now it's too late.
I supported the war. I will always support the troops, and give generously to Wounded Warrior. I will be at the local Memorial Day parade this weekend.If the intelligence is to be believed, we may even have a case for bombing Iran.
But I no longer see the point of American soldiers dying for this feckless a president, nor for as vapid and thankless an Arab/Islamic people and country as Iraq. In a way, I wish the Dems had in fact shown some nerve and defunded this fiasco. It would've been more honest.
We should fight this war on our terms and on our soil with a strong border. There's not much point of fighting anyone over there if they can enter our country at will.And another terrorist attack will happen again.
In either case-the war, immigration- I have zero confidence in Bush's ability to lead this country. He really has no clue, and it's positively frightening.

He would keep them over there without funding if there was any way to do that. The Democrats did the right thing. The timeline wasn't for an immediate withdrawal. The funding is temporary. It makes sense to wait for Bush to evaluate the surge before initiating a withdrawal.

As a progressive I'm mad that the dems didn't step out in courage. But as a politically minded person who can also think beyond the next day and who knows how to budget to get the most for his money, I think that the democratic party is being smart and is budgeting its politcal capital by waiting until it can get the majority of the people behind it in a firm way before forcing the president up against the wall. If there is to be substantive change in this country away from using our might for unjust reasons then democrats need to wait until more than just their base knows what they are doing and why they are doing it. They need to be more than just strong in their resolve, but also strong in their support from the voters. And based on the numbers from the Presidents approval rating, I can tell you that it is only a matter of time. The sad and mournful part though is that until the numbers change and the vote can be passed, more innocents will die in Iraq and Afganistan (and Roumor has it - according to ABC NEWS, in Iran too).

I can't recall the last time I saw this much bull crap on one thread. If the American people really felt about surrender to the Islamo-fascists the way the Libertarians, Homosocialist Party and the anti-American media say they do, the war would have ended a long time ago. You can spin it and slice it anyway you care to, but the fact is that the American people want to win this war; for the sake of their families and their grand kids.
The president's poll numbers reflect our frustration with our Vietnam-like, half-assed efforts to end this thing: Muqtada al-Sadr should have been killed years ago when he was still in Iraq and showed his true colors; the "Surge" should have been the first tactic employed after Saddam Hussein's downfall; we should have announced in the UN years ago that Iran would be missing its navy and air force (a four or five-day job) if it continued to kill our kids by infiltrating men and arms into Iraq; etc. That's the major reason why the president's poll numbers are as low as they are--not as low as the numbers for that sorry bunch on the Hill, of course, but still low. And that's why the Democrats are eating crow, and why the Islamo-troglodytes are crying in their grog.

THis is something i've thought about for a while and I've come to what i think would be an unpopular solution. The success we had after WWII in nation building has also created a foreign policy trap. We think that nation building is part of war. Its not. We face very real threats in the world and, in iraq we faced an intransigent dictator who violated cease fire agreements and should, according to that agreement, have been taken out by Clinton. Bush did the right thing, but then he tried to pretond that iraq was Japan. We need a policy shift when facing threats. We have the power to defeat pretty much any threat we face, but we do not have the ability to rebuild a nation that does not already have a social structure in place to support such rebuilding. Both Japan and Germany had the secial and governmental discipline as societies to make such rebuilding successful. Iraq doesn't. Iraq shouldn't even be a single nation.
In Short we need to defeat and break the enemies that threaten us, but we should not then try to put them back together. That defeats the purpose and, as we can see, just creates greater chaos (maybe Sunni-Shi'ite civil war is Bush's ultimate goal?). We should help our allies, and let our enemies put themseles back together. In Iraq, in my opinion, we should help build up an independent Kurdistan (selling it to Turkey as a potential pressure valve for their own Kurdish problems) and leave the rest of the country to work out their own future.

Since the jihadists know that the Petraeus report and the congressional review will occur in September, prepare to see an upsurge in violence in July and August. I've yet to be convinced that going into Iraq was a bad idea, given what we knew at the time. Having said that, I'll be the first to admit that the war has been prosecuted terribly. We should have jumped with both feet and kept jumping. Even if the "troop surge" is a success, we wouldn't hear about it in the media, so in a way it's a moot point. These are the same people that painted the Tet Offensive as a victory for the VC, remember? Make no mistake: the Democrats care about one thing and one thing only -- winning the White House in '08. From here on in, everything they do will have that goal as the background motive. Any success in the mid-East is a hindrance to this goal. Of course, this doesn't mean that the GOP deserves to win in '08. I don't think they do, as they've screwed things up royally both here and in the mid-East. But I still put more trust in any of the GOP candidates to defend us than I do in Hillary or Obama. Having either one of them as Commander in Chief would make me exceedingly nervous -- I don't think they take the jihadist threat seriously enough.

"Most sane people would welcome success in the Middle East." I wish I could believe this, U.R., but given what I know about Vietnam I have my doubts. There were a lot of folks back then perfectly happy to see us lose. Why should today be any different?

"Most sane people would welcome success in the Middle East" I would welcome Lisa Liu if she came knocking at my door wearing nothing but a smile. However, I do not plan my day accordingly.
"In Iraq, in my opinion, we should help build up an independent Kurdistan (selling it to Turkey as a potential pressure valve for their own Kurdish problems)" Let me know how that sales pitch goes. I have some refrigerators in Antarctica I have to unload.

2004- "I voted for the war in Iraq before I voted against it" 2007- "I voted against the war in Iraq by voting for it" Hell with it. Hey Rod, do you have any room for a crayola Buddhist athiest in that commune you keep talking about starting up? I'm a pretty crackerjack gardener. Kim M

I meant to comment earlier on the CBS/NYTimes poll; aside from the obvious, er, credibility problem, if Americans trust the Dems so much, why is Congress' approval rating WORSE than GWB's? There's a serious gap between those two things. I've puzzled over this general phenomenon before, and I think approval ratings for the president are not easily comparible to those for the congress. People generally say they like their own representatives but hate congress as a whole. I think the public focuses on the loudmouths from other side of the political spectrum, the gross pork/earmarks and special interests that have infected congress. But they still like their representatives. It is reasonable, then, for an individual to think that the reps he/she likes can get enough like-minded reps to band together and do something positive on individual issues while still disliking the institution as a whole. Presidential approval is a more straightforward thing.

I agree with Bug; we need to seal the border. I have no doubt that they are going to hit us again, and I bet that it will be worse than 9/11. I'm sorry to say this, but if you read up about it, this is the conclusion from the experts in the field.

'Of course, the Homosocialist Party also wants us out, just so they can say "See, Bush lost the war. Look at the mess he left us--no peace with the Islamo-fascists, no more cheap oil, and nuclear bombs! What do you expect us poor Democrats to do about it?".' Indeed, Cleveland. If they win in '08, they can blame Bush & Co. for all that's going wrong, make no effort to fix it other than increase taxes and government spending, and go back to their main job, which is maintaining the poor minorities on the white liberal plantation. With the 8 - 12 million Mexican immigrants that will then be legal, they'll have their work cut out for them. But I'm sure they'll manage - the plantation owners always do.

Cleveland.... You are jumping to a lot of conclusions about my post. The question at hand is Iraq, and the fact it's been a disaster from its moment of inception. I'm fully aware that there are again terrorists in Afghanistan, and it was absolutely 100% the right thing to do to go in and get them. It's too bad we don't have the resources to finish that job, as they seem tied down elsewhere. It's also too bad we have not seen fit to honor our commitments to try to rebuild that society, but what would you expect with the black hole that Iraq has become, sucking in all available rescores.... All things considered, at this very moment, yes, I suppose that life in the US is good. Nightmare was probably not the best descriptive word for the situation we are in, because when you wake up from a bad dream you find that reality is not what you were dreaming of. Hangover might be a better term, because the next few presidents, regardless of what their party affiliation is, is going to have to deal with a nuclear Iran (unless the Israelis do something about it) and any other middle eastern country that can lay their hands on the bomb, a broken and demoralized military, China, resurgent nationalist Russia, Sunni and Shiite sectarian violence, unsecured borders, Hugo Chavez, radial Islam, North Korea, and a spending spree in this country that has saddled us with trillions more of debt. I do have a clue. We won the war and lost the peace. Our military commanders told Washing EXACTLY what was needed, and Washington told them to pound sand...remember Rumsfelds comment about going to war with the Army you have...sad to say but the next 20 years or so are going to be a nightmare. We will see a nuclear exchange somewhere, and will be powerless to stop it because we chose to fight an imaginary enemy in Iraq instead of the real one. My God is a god of free will. Men will suffer the consequences of their actions or inactions. Blame for the current situation rests squarely on the shoulders of the man who responded so poorly to the aftermath of 9/11. The next candidate I vote for will be the one who stands up and offers vision and direct to spend wisely, secure the country, and win the peace. So far, none of the current crop meets that standard. Cheers....Phil