sabra
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-14-07 10:29 AM
Original message |
(CBS) Bob Shiefer: Bush appears to have kept most reluctant Repubs on his side re: Iraq |
|
Edited on Fri Sep-14-07 10:38 AM by sabra
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070914.htm<snip> Bob Shiefer, who attended a White House lunch Bush held yesterday for political commentators, said on CBS News, "The Republicans who were supporting the President, who were wavering in their support, it appears the President is going to be able to keep all of them on his side. So this policy is going to go through. They have not been able to change it, the Democrats haven't."
|
ananda
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-14-07 10:31 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Shieffer sounds about as flaky and incoherent as Bush. |
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-14-07 10:36 AM
Response to Original message |
2. A permanent occupation, with no end or exit, and Repubs are OK with that? |
|
Edited on Fri Sep-14-07 10:37 AM by wienerdoggie
That surprises me. I figured they would rally 'round the Surge and around the token withdrawal of surge forces, but what Chimpy announced last night was a whole different ballgame--a permanent, decades-long occupation of Iraq. At the very least, we have gone FAR beyond the original IWR--a new resolution needs to be drafted and approved by Congress for this bullshit. I expect a big fight, and I think if the Repugs try to defend a big, permanent occupation (which was NOT what we were sold), they will lose--there is going to be a big battle over this.
|
Proud Liberal Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-14-07 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. This is what I've been wondering |
|
I have had little doubt that the GOP would continue their support of the "surge" and oppose any defunding of the war, at least on Bush's watch, but I'm curious to see how they will line up on Bush's new "vision" for an "enduring relationship" with Iraq. An "enduring relationship" (i.e. indefinite long-term military presence of possibly thousands of troops) certainly isn't ANYTHING that Bush et. al suggested might be necessary or part of the deal when he blithely invaded Iraq in 2003 and I wonder if Bush hasn't shot himself (and his party) in the foot by (to his credit) finally being honest about his intentions towards Iraq. I wonder what the Iraqi people think about his proposal of us having an "enduring relationship" with them? I thought that most of them (not their government necessarily) wants us out of there (not that opinions of anybody but Bush et. al matter)? We are in for some interesting times indeed.
|
rodeodance
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-14-07 10:47 AM
Response to Original message |
3. He sure did. Sen. Warner Bush to toss the Repugs a bone and he did --Christmas |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 03:11 PM
Response to Original message |