SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - News Analysis: Bipartisanship Disappears

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - News Analysis: Bipartisanship Disappears (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=113289)

News Analysis: Bipartisanship Disappears

Hmm. Whatever happened to the promises to work together? Seems that campaign slogan from the last election was a lie.

-S

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2730220.shtml

Quote:

(AP)

Quote:

Those lofty promises of cooperation between the Bush White House and the newly Democratic Congress have been drowned out by acrid bursts of name-calling.

Amid open confrontation between President Bush and Congress over Iraq, the White House is branding Democrats defeatists and accusing them of pursuing a surrender strategy.

To Democrats, Vice President Dick Cheney is an "attack dog" and President Bush is guilty of more political abuses than Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal.

Such heated rhetoric is fouling Washington's already tense political atmosphere. It is undercutting the pledges for greater cooperation that both sides made shortly after Democrats' victories last November that put them back in control of the House and Senate.

It also is becoming harder to do business _ even on issues less contentious than Iraq and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales _ now that the 2008 presidential campaign season has begun.

The House late Wednesday passed war spending legislation that would order troops to begin coming home from Iraq by Oct. 1. The bill, already negotiated with Senate leaders, was expected to reach the president by early next week. He has pledged a veto.

The unusually snarly level of political discourse shows the deep party divisions over Bush's strategy to increase troop levels in Iraq. But it also echoes the harsher talk and invectives on Internet blogs, talk radio and some 24-hour cable television programs.

Those in both parties appeal regularly for a lowering of the wattage of political rhetoric. That seldom happens.

Polls traditionally show the public would like to see less name-calling, said pollster Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center.

But sometimes, when the same people are asked whether they would like to see elected officials who represent their position make compromises, "We get a fair amount of pushback," Kohut said. "People say, `Well, actually, my position on this is pretty important to me.'"

"And Iraq, more than anything else, is an issue that has really galvanized public opinion one way or the other," Kohut said.

Many Republicans assumed after the November elections that incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelsoi, D-Calif., would become Bush's most vocal critic on the Iraq war. Yet the fiercest foe in recent days has been Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who has depicted the war as lost.

Bush responded by saying Reid and other Democratic leaders were choosing "to make a political statement" that was "wrong for our troops and it's wrong for our country." Cheney accused Reid of "defeatism" and political opportunism in trying to set a troop withdrawal timetable in the war spending bill.

Reid branded Cheney "an attack dog" and said he saw no point in getting into "a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating."

Actually, that was a bit of a stretch. Cheney's approval rating in national polls generally has been in the low 30s, a few points lower than Bush's percentages.

Adding to the rancor is the back-and-forth over Gonzales, who is trying to hold onto his job as the nation's chief law enforcer.

Lawmakers from both parties questioned him closely last week over his role in the 2006 firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

Gonzales said "I don't know" and "I can't recall" scores of times and even some Republicans said his testimony was evasive. Bush, however, praised Gonzales' performance and said the attorney general was "honest" and "honorable."

That led his critics to portray the president as increasingly isolated.

"The president's in his bunker on both the war in Iraq and Attorney General Gonzales," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "What everyone else sees clearly he doesn't see at all, and that's a real problem for our country."

The White House acknowledges that language can get overheated.

"I think that what happens in Washngton at times of high drama and passion on both sides of the aisle, and on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, that there are times when you're trying to make your substantive point, that the rhetoric can sometimes lead you to say things that you might not otherwise say in a one-on-one conversation," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Wednesday.

Allan J. Lichtman, a political history professor at American University who ran for Senate last year in Maryland as a Democrat, said ideological lines have firmed in Congress with a geographic realignment that has seen disappearance of moderating influences in both parties.

No longer, he said, are there a lot of liberal and moderate Republicans in the Northeast and conservative Democrats in the South.

"We have the most polarized House and Senate that we've had since the New Deal days," he said.

But a big part of the Democratic victory was in implied promise that they would get us out of Iraq.

With 50 new Veterans in our Congress, they must realize how hopeless the situation in Iraq really is.

Also, to a Veteran, Bush and Cheney (and Clinton and Quayle etc) are a bunch of Draft Dodgers, so when they talk about sacrifice, it comes across as nothing but rhetoric.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heibges

How about out of Iraq without giving Al Qeida the keys? Nice. Some people do not care as long as they get their political gain.

-S

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

How about out of Iraq without giving Al Qeida the keys? Nice. Some people do not care as long as they get their political gain.

-S

You know its so ironic. There was no Al Qeida in Iraq until the US invaded. An American invasion is a magnet for them. So to say that you can't leave because your very presense has created a terrorist situation is... the saddest irony.

You had to get rid of Saddam cause he was a threat to the US. Now you can't leave because the absense of Saddam is a threat to the US.

Bravo. They call that a quagmire. http://www.slotforum.com/forums/styl...fault/clap.gif

Quote:

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

How about out of Iraq without giving Al Qeida the keys? Nice. Some people do not care as long as they get their political gain.

-S

I'm happy that magnet is far away from most of the rest of the world.

Let me see..................... what would Al Qaeda have done with all that time on their hands had they not been enticed to Iraq...............and Afghanistan................and Pakistan? :hmm:

Always look on the bright side of life. :yep:

Quote:

You had to get rid of Saddam cause he was a threat to the US. Now you can't leave because the absense of Saddam is a threat to the US.

They could and should leave but not by a timetable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Hmm. Whatever happened to the promises to work together? Seems that campaign slogan from the last election was a lie.

Pelosi lied - soldiers died. :roll:

Reality already is several years ahead of you, guys. Get over it. Your match is lost since long, long time. The loosers in Washington just try to hide the size of the mess they are responsible for. Pathos and catchphrases won't make a difference anymore. The majority of the American people finally has learned to see through all these lies. The exact opposite of what was hoped to achieve, has been acchieved. Congrats. to take that fact as an argument to carry on endlessly, now has become a circular argument only.

Next time think twice before launching stupid wars that have extremely bad perspectives from the very beginning.

I don't think that the US can pull out now though. At least they aren't going to be able to when you think about the kind of money they have and are still investing in long term military bases.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle355178.ece
A year old article.

But its been in the books since the beginning.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html

I think that part of the plan is to turn Iraq into another American strategic launching point.

EDIT. Ah. Just found an article as recent as the beginning of the month. http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/04/us..._on_enduri.php

Quote:

Originally Posted by P_Funk

I think that part of the plan is to turn Iraq into another American strategic launching point.

This will have to be abandoned - unless the US turns around and supports and backs the Kurds 100% in their independence drive. In which case, anything south of Kurdistan will have to go anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Quote:

Originally Posted by P_Funk

I think that part of the plan is to turn Iraq into another American strategic launching point.

This will have to be abandoned - unless the US turns around and supports and backs the Kurds 100% in their independence drive. In which case, anything south of Kurdistan will have to go anyway.

That wouldn't make Turkey very happy. And I'm sure that the last thing alot of Middle East powers want is to have another independant ethnic nation splintering off.

But then again the US just gave up some bases in Saudi Arabia recently so they might need to make the compromise, or feel it necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Quote:

Originally Posted by P_Funk

I think that part of the plan is to turn Iraq into another American strategic launching point.

This will have to be abandoned - unless the US turns around and supports and backs the Kurds 100% in their independence drive. In which case, anything south of Kurdistan will have to go anyway.

That wouldn't make Turkey very happy.

True.

Quote:

And I'm sure that the last thing alot of Middle East powers want is to have another independant ethnic nation splintering off.

Very true.

Quote:

But then again the US just gave up some bases in Saudi Arabia recently so they might need to make the compromise, or feel it necessary.

Neither SA nor Iraq are safe places for US bases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Quote:

But then again the US just gave up some bases in Saudi Arabia recently so they might need to make the compromise, or feel it necessary.

Neither SA nor Iraq are safe places for US bases.

But then the question remains, where?

But it seems obvious that the US didn't intend for Iraq to be this volatile, or else they wouldn't have begun these bases nearly 4 years ago. And you also have to ask, why are they still building them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Quote:

But then again the US just gave up some bases in Saudi Arabia recently so they might need to make the compromise, or feel it necessary.

Neither SA nor Iraq are safe places for US bases.

But then the question remains, where?

Yep. There's some desparation about this.

Quote:

But it seems obvious that the US didn't intend for Iraq to be this volatile, or else they wouldn't have begun these bases nearly 4 years ago. And you also have to ask, why are they still building them?

A contract's a contract. :doh:

The simple answer is because the US has not come to a final conclusion to quite Iraq, with the executive veto hanging in the air over Congress' vote otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

The simple answer is because the US has not come to a final conclusion to quite Iraq, with the executive veto hanging in the air over Congress' vote otherwise.

If I recall correctly the President can veto a Bill twice before it must be passed into law.

Quote:

A contract's a contract. :doh:

Military Industrial Complex anyone?

Here's what al Qaida has been up to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/wo...668ba3&ei=5070

Quote:

WASHINGTON, April 1 — As Al Qaeda rebuilds in Pakistan’s tribal areas, a new generation of leaders has emerged under Osama bin Laden to cement control over the network’s operations, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

The new leaders rose from within the organization after the death or capture of the operatives that built Al Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, leading to surprise and dismay within United States intelligence agencies about the group’s ability to rebound from an American-led offensive.

It has been known that American officials were focusing on a band of Al Qaeda training camps in Pakistan’s remote mountains, but a clearer picture is emerging about those who are running the camps and thought to be involved in plotting attacks.

I'm among those who thinks we should have stayed in, and focused on, Aghanistan and that region until the situation was stable and we had bin Ladin in hand. As it is, the Taliban and al Qaida are reconstituting and rebounding. Iraq's good for propaganda, recruiting and training. It's not pinning them down anymore than Camp Lejeune pins down the U.S. Marines.

The only al Qaida affiliates in Iraq before the war were in Kurdish territory (though not friendly with the secular/nationalist Kurdish parties) not chilling out in Baghdad with Saddam and his boys.

It's fair to ask what we do now and it's also fair to conclude that pulling out would give al Qaida bragging rights. Of course, staying in gives them bragging rights too. Hell, they make music videos about blowing up our guys. I think we need to be less concerned with how good a bunch of fanatics feel about themselves and look more at the effect of Iraq on our own military readiness, flexibility and diplomatic situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Hmm. Whatever happened to the promises to work together? Seems that campaign slogan from the last election was a lie.

It takes two to tango. One side or the other should listen to the voters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Pelosi lied - soldiers died. :roll:

Oh, what has she said that has caused soldiers to die?

Folks talk sometimes like AL Qaeda is some company like General Motors, or like a country, or like a military organization.

Carlo's "Mini Manual for the Urban Guerilla", which every terrorist group has religiously followed for the last 30 years (thus making it one of the most translanted and reprinted books in history), spells out that the sucess of a terrorist organization depends on its almost total decentralization.

So the name Al Qaeda is kind of a banner meant to give publicity to a individuals who though closely associated by ideas and methods, have absolutely no knowledge of one anothers operation. These small groups are called cells.

When terrorist groups have been successful in the past, has been due to the Cell Leader being extremely smart and resourceful.

I'm sure there were Al Qaeda in Iraq before the United States invaded. They were probably trying to kill Saddaam. There were probably some in Libya trying to kill Qadaffi also. Muslim Extremists have always been in opposition to leaders who have been supported by the West.

Look at Anwar Saddat. He was killed not so much for signing a peace deal with Israel, but because of the large western hotels and nightclubs he allowed to be built in Cairo.

9/11 cost about $500,000 to pull off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

This will have to be abandoned - unless the US turns around and supports and backs the Kurds 100% in their independence drive.

That wouldn't make Turkey very happy.

Suits me just fine. Turkey can get stuffed.
Kurdistan ("Kurdistan" just like "Palestine") is the only one worth a damn for 1000km radius.

Al-Qaeda is like the notion of a "nation". It's just convinent to have some kind of proper name to attribute the ideology. Nazis, Huns, Mongols, Conqestadors, Crusaders, Confederates, Rednecks, Xerox, Google, Coke. Al-Qaeda means "traditional Islam as it is taught in madrassahs in Morocco, Libya, Algeria, Thailand, Pakistan, India, Burma, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Oman, Yemen, Qatar, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Chad, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, and Syria." But rather than say all that, we just use the term Al-Qaeda.

Destroy the kuffir in Dar al-Harb. Wait for them in every ambush. Doesn't matter if you're Sunni, Shi'a, or Wahabbi.

Quote:

Originally Posted by P_Funk

I don't buy your argument. Saddam was a worse threat than any terrorists running around. He has already sent his hit squads to try and assasinate our ex presidents, and I think he had the capability to do a ton more harm to the world than what any two bit terrorists could do.

So in summary, we made the right move. Saddam was a terrorist x 1,000,000,000,000 in capability.

-S

PS. Not to mention, he had WMD's and a ton of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tycho102

Quote:

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

This will have to be abandoned - unless the US turns around and supports and backs the Kurds 100% in their independence drive.

That wouldn't make Turkey very happy.

Suits me just fine. Turkey can get stuffed.
Kurdistan ("Kurdistan" just like "Palestine") is the only one worth a damn for 1000km radius.
.

I really feel sorry for the Kurds.

Unfortunately, Turkey is our NATO ally so I imagine the Kurds will take it in the rump...again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Quote:

Originally Posted by P_Funk

I don't think you can call Saddam a worse threat than global terrorism in general. There is no proof he had imminent plans to do anything. And if by taking out Saddam you effectively revitalized Al Quada by giving them a new war from which to draw recruits and polarize the Middle East then... one threat leads to a larger one. Is that ultimately a better result?

And though I would agree that Saddam was a man that should have been somehow dealt with, the way that things have ended up I would not say the right decision was made. It hasn't turned out better for the Iraqis, for the Middle East, or for the US. The US has more enemies as a result. Saddam should have been eliminated certainly, somehow. But a righteous cause does not justify any and all means, and certainly not the most beliggerent and ineffective ones: ie invasion and occupation.

Quote:

PS. Not to mention, he had WMD's and a ton of them.

Don't give me that. I know AL has her thread bringing that back, but honestly. You're trying to make a square peg fit here. And nevertheless he didn't have long range ICBMs and he didn't have functional weapons of that nature either. Intent to create WMDs is not a justification for a war that couldn't be delayed by a month, as it was said back in 03.

The rush to war is precisely what caused this situation to occur.