Cenk Uygur: Democrats Are Playing Politics With Iraq

[babylonsister]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/8093

Democrats Are Playing Politics With Iraq
by Cenk Uygur | Jun 13 2007 -


So, Harry Reid says he is going to revive talks of a withdrawal again in the Senate. But get a load of this paragraph from CNN explaining the leading Democratic plan:

"The first (plan), sponsored by Reid and Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would set a goal of beginning the withdrawal of U.S. troops by April 2008, unless the Iraqi government demonstrated political and security progress. However, President Bush would have the power to waive that requirement."

That is the leading plan the Democrats have. The second plan sponsored by Feingold and Reid (the Majority Leader is leading by supporting every plan there is - very bold) is more sensible but is not expected to receive enough support, even from Democrats, to get very far. So, basically, all we have is what you see above. And that's awful.

That is the equivalent of saying that you are going to let this president run out the clock on withdrawal. You are going to let him keep all of those troops in there until he leaves office. The withdrawal begins in April, 2008? It is only triggered if Iraqis don't make progress? And the president can waive it even then? Come on, that's not a real proposal to get us out of Iraq. That's politics.

Here's how the Democrats think it's going to work out - they appear to be pushing to get us out of Iraq, but in fact let the Republicans keep us in Iraq until the 2008 elections roll around, and then they hang that political albatross around the Republicans' necks and walk away with a landslide in 2008.

That would be a fine political strategy if this was an unimportant issue. But this is not such an issue. You are playing with people's lives. This kind of callous political calculation is so raw and dishonest that it makes me question your integrity.

snip//

If Harry Reid and Carl Levin and the rest of the Senate Democrats think they are going to get away with this junk, they got another thought coming to them. September should have been the real deadline. They already blew that. They should have set real benchmarks a long time ago. Now, everyone's patience has run out. Now, there is only one choice left. Either pack our bags in Iraq or pack your bags in DC.

[Solly Mack]

1. ...

...

[baldguy]

2. The War in Iraq was never a war.

It was conceived as a political game by PNAC. It was initiated as a political game by the GOP. And it has continued to be used as a political game by the Bush Regime.

Any position other than "Bring the troops home NOW" is playing politics with the war.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Cenk lost all credibility with me when he thought F.Thompson

was a sweetheart of a guy, who seemed really sincere! Apparently unaware that the asshole is an actor, and a neocon psycho friend of Dick Cheney's. And now this: WTF do you want them to do, Cenk? Introduce a bill that mandates quicker withdrawal, that will get no Repub support and thus go nowhere, but at least reminds folks who is keeping our troops there--check. Introduce a bill that sets a more modest goal that will get bipartisan (at least Smith's and Hagel's) support, thus at least having a slight chance to reach Chimpy's desk, so it will get vetoed--check. They are fucking TRYING, within political realities in the Senate. How do you set "real benchmarks" when we don't have the votes to pass a bill with them? That's the "tougher" bill. How do you actually get the bill to pass? That's the "milder" bill. Can people not see reality?

[endarkenment]

4. You deny funding.

Everything else is bullshit.

[Bitwit1234]

5. No matter what congress does

in the way of a bill bush will veto it. I suppose that if anybody could tell the democrats in congress how to end this war, go to it....

They can't cut off funds. bush has to sign the bill. So just what are they going to do. Everybody is hollering a lot but I don't see any suggestions from the hollerers.