Comments on: Fighting Smart

By: The Mahablog » Rogue President

The Mahablog » Rogue President — Mon, 07 May 2007 13:57:47 +0000

[...] But both Broder and Gailey think that Congress could stop Bush if only the Dems would get the courage to cut off funding to the war. I disagree. Bush is a psychopath who is holding the troops hostage. If you’ve ever had to deal with one, you’ll understand when I say you cannot back a psychopath into a corner. Just when you think you’ve got the varmint boxed in, he’ll do some utterly unimaginable thing to get free. I think if funds were cut off Bush is likely to siphon money from other parts of government to keep the war going. And every Republican politician would be off the hook; instead of being forced to take a firm stand for or against the war, they could continue to scapegoat the Dems as “surrender-crats” who don’t support the troops. [...]

By: The Mahablog » The Next Bill?

The Mahablog » The Next Bill? — Fri, 04 May 2007 12:49:24 +0000

[...] As I argued here, I think the smartest strategy right now could be to hit Bush with a bill that’s got real conditions in it, even if not timetables, that can attract a substantial number of Republican votes. A veto-proof majority would be ideal. Force Bush into a real confrontation with Congress, not just Democrats in Congress. Commander Guy would either be brought to heel, or else Congress would be forced to acknowledge and deal with the constitutional crisis they’ve been ignoring for some time. [...]

By: The Heretik : Postcards from the Bunker

The Heretik : Postcards from the Bunker — Thu, 03 May 2007 14:03:27 +0000

[...] A few questions remain. Are the Dems really serious about anything? And can’t Bush find money elsewhere? How much more evident must it be that the real implacable foe to progress is Bush’s ego? [...]

By: The Mahablog » No Compromise

The Mahablog » No Compromise — Thu, 03 May 2007 13:43:33 +0000

[...] As I wrote yesterday, psychopaths don’t compromise on anything they consider important. In my experience, they are averse to compromising even on matters they consider unimportant. It’s the nature of the beast, see; they can no more compromise than pigs can fly. The pattern I have observed is that they will stubbornly refuse to budge even on trivial matters. If they are forced to concede they will only pretend to do so, often using a fake compromise to deceive the other side into making all the real concessions. [...]

By: moonbat

moonbat — Thu, 03 May 2007 03:46:24 +0000

I liked the idea, voiced by diariest Kid Oakland on Daily Kos, that Pelosi and Reid should appoint Jim Webb to negotiate personally with Bush.

This would give the Dems two major advantages at least: 1) it’s tough to hold enough Congresspeople together against one psychopath – Reid and Pelosi did it once, they may not be able to do it again, and 2) Webb has a son in Iraq and so any noise Bush will put forth about endangering the troops is going to be met with Webb’s “BullShit!” in Bush’s face. The political theater alone would be great.

By: Swami

Swami — Thu, 03 May 2007 03:12:27 +0000

I don’t know what Pelosi and Reid will do either, but I do have faith that they won’t roll over.I perceive both of them as having strength,conviction, courage, and honesty. And are people of substance.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 03 May 2007 02:55:31 +0000

Actually, Bush’s tactic is an old one. It only works when one is unconcerned about the consequences.

To emphasize the situation to the American Public, Congress could pass a 1 month spending bill with no strings, then resubmit the vetoed bill at the end of the month. When Bush vetoes it again, pass another 1 month emergency spending bill (lather, rinse, repeat).

By: Swami

Swami — Thu, 03 May 2007 02:52:02 +0000

Benchmarks will never happen..no matter how you flip it, benchmarks will all come down to trying to undo Bush’s past mistakes to create a society in Iraq like there was before Bush tinkered with it. You can’t unscramble scrambled eggs. It’s a civil war in Iraq because Bush brought about the circumstances and added the fuel to make it a civil war. It’s pure foolishness to think the Iraqis can negotiate their way out their predicament in 5 months. It will take a lot more blood and a lot more time before Iraq settles down. So benchmarks can only serve as an excuse to bail out..and Bush won’t buy.
I read tonight were some right wing idiot characterized the Iraqi’s handling of their dilemma as “squabbling”. Really, Bush flipped their entire society on its head and implemented democratic elections guaranteed to destroy their unity as a nation, and this rightie describes it in terms of pettiness. Poor Bush..having to deal with small minded ingrates.

By: Bonnie

Bonnie — Thu, 03 May 2007 01:20:45 +0000

The Asian woman in the ad looks like Michelle Malkin.

By: biggerbox

biggerbox — Thu, 03 May 2007 00:37:48 +0000

I’m emotionally fond of the idea of sending the same bill back to him, over and over, but I realize that tactic would only work with a sane opponent, and here would be a waste of time. I agree that working toward a ‘Congress vs. White House’ situation is a solid aim, and I’m willing to sacrifice some purity to get a critical number of Republicans peeled off. (I think the subtext of ‘Congress vs. White House’ could be ‘Rationalists vs. Crazy Commander Guy.”)

I think it would help to get some agreed-upon list of ’specific, measurable things we want to see happen real soon’ , whether we call them “benchmarks” or “objectives” or “mumble-wumpus”. (I’m really, really tired of the “We’re making progress! / No, you’re not!” back and forth, and it would be nice if we could get agreement from congressional Republicans on some specific measurements that matter.)