The Wicked Old Witch Is Dead!

[All Vol!]

Ok, so the Senate is not yet decided, although the latest I have seen at 2:05 a.m. looks good for the anti-Bush camp,...nevertheless, I am thrilled this nite!

I will not be so bold/naive as to suggest that a Democratic Congress (and Senate?) is the cure-all for our nation's huge challenges and current quandary. BUT, my personal and strong feeling is that this is more likely to be a step in the right direction. I believe, at a minumum, that the Bush administration has taken us steadily, further and further away from constitutional government and that they have done it coldly and for personal gain in various forms. Humbly, I believe that this will prove to have been a great nite for our country!

The next two years, at least, will be exciting for Democrats and true patriots. For Republicans?...Depressing!

The new Congressional leadership has an unfortunate yet blissful responsibility and opportunity: to begin undoing the incredible damage this administration has done to democracy and our image in the world as a great nation among nations. But let the work begin, and tell me how I can help...

 

[MG1968]

I think you're going to be very disappointed for at least the next two years. Without supermajorities in either house, the Dems will never pass anything that Bush threatens to veto or vetos outright.

I also don't know how the dems will be able to improve the image of the US around the world. They could try to get Kyoto passed, but that didn't work when Clinton had dem majorities. They will, no doubt, launch investigations on a daily basis as part of their "accountability" mantra. It's too bad the separation of powers prevents them from enforcing subpoenas against Bush and Cheney.
Dems claim to have a responsible energy policy, but thus far have not given a clue as to what it is.
What I've heard from Pelosi is a litany of vote buying measures. Higher minimum wage, prescription drugs, and so on.
I will give the Dems credit. They peaked at the right time and with the assistance of a willing press staged an impressive line of successes.

but now it's time to put up or shut up. They've bitched and moaned for 6 years now about how evil W. is and how he's ruining the country. Unlike the GOP revolution of 1994, the Dems have no clear agenda and history won't treat them kindly if all they're able to do is impeach a lame duck president.

 

[All Vol!]

It's too bad the separation of powers prevents them from enforcing subpoenas against Bush and Cheney.

You sound relieved by this. What do they have to hide? Accountability is a good thing, except I guess for those who are accountable.

What I've heard from Pelosi is a litany of vote buying measures. Higher minimum wage, prescription drugs, and so on.

Jeez, your grapes are sour, aren't they?! To criticize the winner...as always...the last bastion of the defeated.

with the assistance of a willing press staged an impressive line of successes.

It is a true riot that you would reference a mainstream media here, as though they have been a liberal body in the post 9/11 atmosphere. All kidding aside, if you believe this, you have either done no homework or are just plain silly. The duping of many, carried out by this corrupt government, sure as heck ain't lost on you.

the Dems have no clear agenda

the rescuing of constitutional government is not only a clear agenda...it is the best of all. I am astonished that someone so well-spoken and clearly intelligent as yourself, could fall victim to the lies of this administration and never see them coming. So discouraging. Good luck to you.

 

[MG1968]

I agree, I'd love to see a return of true Constitutional government. Especially with respect to the 10th amendment, which no one in Washington DC seems to care about.

But, how will the the Dems "rescue Constitutional Government"? The Constitution doesn't provide for affirmative action, social security, abortion or hurricane Katrina relief. There's also no where in the Constitution that says we should base our legal decisions on foreign court rulings. Nor does it provide for substituting UN regulations for the Constitution.

And if you don't think there are a lot of left leaning, influential members of the media then you're the one being silly.

 

[USMCvol]

Tell me how constitutional government was in jeopardy? I never saw tanks in the streets. Everything Bush did during his term was done by other Presidents, with the obvious exception of the Patriot Act. We've had that for years now and have yet to hear of agregious abuses.

 

[cibai]

Tell me how constitutional government was in jeopardy? I never saw tanks in the streets. Everything Bush did during his term was done by other Presidents, with the obvious exception of the Patriot Act. We've had that for years now and have yet to hear of agregious abuses.

See: signing statements.

 

[volinbham]

Crap, I read this thread title and thought that something had happened to Hillary or Pelosi

 

[volinbham]

Jeez, your grapes are sour, aren't they?! To criticize the winner...as always...the last bastion of the defeated.


It is a true riot that you would reference a mainstream media here, as though they have been a liberal body in the post 9/11 atmosphere. All kidding aside, if you believe this, you have either done no homework or are just plain silly. The duping of many, carried out by this corrupt government, sure as heck ain't lost on you.


the rescuing of constitutional government is not only a clear agenda...it is the best of all. I am astonished that someone so well-spoken and clearly intelligent as yourself, could fall victim to the lies of this administration and never see them coming. So discouraging. Good luck to you.

If complaining about agenda items is sourgrapes, you've had sour grapes about the past congressional leadership and the adminstration since you've been posting!

The press certainly has a "speak voice to power" mentality.

This idea of constitutional government is the one that really gets me. Throughout our history there have been swings in the locus of power between the three branches. Prior to W's administration, power of the executive branch was at a all time lower relative to the Congress and Judiciary. Even with all his "evil" and "self-serving" actions, the executive branch is still not overly powerful and is less powerful than at other times in our history.

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

Even with all his "evil" and "self-serving" actions, the executive branch is still not overly powerful and is less powerful than at other times in our history.

I have a feeling that is about to change. Read this way: Bush will never run for any office again so he has no incentive to refrain from vetoing everything that crosses his desk that he disagrees with. Then you have to consider that the Dems knocked off the low hanging fruit yesterday (i.e. republicans in moderate-to-liberal districts and a couple of scandal-ridden districts that might otherwise vote conservative), thereby leaving a more conservative republican caucus that will no doubt become quite shrill in an effort to re-solidify the social conservatives into their base. What I see for the next two years is gridlock, and maybe that's exactly what this country needs right now.

 

[Lexvol]

I have a feeling that is about to change. Read this way: Bush will never run for any office again so he has no incentive to refrain from vetoing everything that crosses his desk that he disagrees with. Then you have to consider that the Dems knocked off the low hanging fruit yesterday (i.e. republicans in moderate-to-liberal districts and a couple of scandal-ridden districts that might otherwise vote conservative), thereby leaving a more conservative republican caucus that will no doubt become quite shrill in an effort to re-solidify the social conservatives into their base. What I see for the next two years is gridlock, and maybe that's exactly what this country needs right now.

Gridlock is always good.

 

[volinbham]

I have a feeling that is about to change. Read this way: Bush will never run for any office again so he has no incentive to refrain from vetoing everything that crosses his desk that he disagrees with. Then you have to consider that the Dems knocked off the low hanging fruit yesterday (i.e. republicans in moderate-to-liberal districts and a couple of scandal-ridden districts that might otherwise vote conservative), thereby leaving a more conservative republican caucus that will no doubt become quite shrill in an effort to re-solidify the social conservatives into their base. What I see for the next two years is gridlock, and maybe that's exactly what this country needs right now.

While I don't disagree with some of this - I don't see how using veto power is undo exercise of executive power.

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

While I don't disagree with some of this - I don't see how using veto power is undo exercise of executive power.

Not undue exercise of power. It's just that Bush has not vetoed anything that I'm aware of while his party controlled congress. I think that has made the executive weaker in practice, although not in-fact, for the past 6 years.

 

[orange+white=heaven]

While I don't disagree with some of this - I don't see how using veto power is undo exercise of executive power.

No more undo than provisioning legislation into ineffectuality on signing it....

 

[CSpindizzy]

Unlike the GOP revolution of 1994, the Dems have no clear agenda and history won't treat them kindly if all they're able to do is impeach a lame duck president.

Ummm....in case you missed it, that whole Revolution died right quick. Nothing that was pushed made it too far. So even with an agenda, the GOP squandered everything.

And even with redistricting, the Dems still pulled off some wins. Funny how DeLay crafted the master plan in TX and his own 'safe' seat fell to a Dem. If that isn't irony for you....

 

[therealUT]

For all of those feeling the doom and gloom brought on by the mid term election results, I offer hope. For those rejoicing, I will bridle your enthusiasm. However, first and foremost, we are going to tackle the issue of Rumsfeld.

SecDef Rumsfeld was a more than competent SecDef. However, from the beginning, he ruffled feathers in the military community. He at the forefront of the largest military restructuring in our history, and the military community is a proud animal. A civilian does not get rid of Posts, Divisions, and Regiments without receiving some scars of his own.

Rumsfeld was also a large proponent of unconvential ops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The only major Army branch conducting 'business as usual' in OIF and OEF was the Infantry. Armor and Field Artillery units were basically retrained and refitted upon arrival in theater, to conduct infantry patrols. Once again, toes were stepped on.

At the point in which it seemed highly probable that the House and Senate would be turned over to the Democrats, the Brass who had an axe to grind concerning the previously stated subjects, became more vocal.

However, in the aftermath (and the nomination of Robert Gates), it is clear to see that the Brass who were screaming the loudest (besides Wesley Clark, who has apparently lost 'it'), were obviously more upset over the restructuring than the handling of Iraq. This is clear in the fact that Robert Gates is coming from the intelligence committee and will continue to stress unconventional ops and pacification efforts...so far, no outcry from the military elite.

Now, back to the election fallout. There will be no great fallout from these elections. These two years hold the promise of being two years of great legislation being passed. That is right. Many pundits are stating that the following two years will be lame duck years. I believe that both the Democratic and Republican Officials understand that holding their ground will be political suicide in 2008.

If the Democrats insist on passing purely liberal legislation, two things will happen. First, all of it will be vetoed, and the Dems might hold the House and Senate, however, they hold neither by a 2/3 majority. Second, it will send a message to voting centrists, that this is what they can expect if the Dems hold the House and Senate, and add the Whitehouse in 2008.

If the Republicans insist on vetoing less liberal, more centrist, legislation, then they will basically hand over the Whitehouse in 2008. However, if they show that they are willing to come across that aisle, and pass needed legislation, they provide themselves with a legitimate shot at holding the Whitehouse and at least winning back one of the houses.

 

[CSpindizzy]

What does Gates' appointment mean for our policy on Iran? After all he was a participant on the whole arms for hostages Iran Contra affair. Is he more along the lines of diplomatic dialogue with Iran or more of one to push for war?

 

[therealUT]

What does Gates' appointment mean for our policy on Iran? After all he was a participant on the whole arms for hostages Iran Contra affair. Is he more along the lines of diplomatic dialogue with Iran or more of one to push for war?

I doubt he will push for war. I think he will focus our military on securing what we have in Iraq. The intelligence community views insurgencies in a much different light than the military community.

The military community holds the belief that we can bring about an end of insurgency through the use of overwhelming force. The intelligence community feels that to end an insurgency you have to promote security and kill recruitment.

Rumsfeld was trying to serve both masters: focus on security ops, but close and kill with overwhelming force in large operations. Ultimately, that leads to enhanced recruitment for insurgents, leading to a prolonged war (still winnable, though.)

I feel Gates will probably pull out everyone other than SF, Infantry, CA, and Engineers (of course we will keep the support service personnel.) I do not foresee any armor, Cav, nor FA units being deployed back to Iraq now.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Resurrecting the old Papa Bush gang is actually scary. Something about dinosaurs of the Cold War trying to fight this one just doesn't seem right.

As for overwhelming force, if 140K troops cannot contain an insurgency and train a military and police force, how do we accomplish anything good?

 

[therealUT]

Resurrecting the old Papa Bush gang is actually scary. Something about dinosaurs of the Cold War trying to fight this one just doesn't seem right.

As for overwhelming force, if 140K troops cannot contain an insurgency and train a military and police force, how do we accomplish anything good?

It's all about perception. The Iraqi people must feel that their local forces can provide them with the security they need to go about their day to day lives. Right now, I think they have that perception in Basra, Tikrit, and Mosul. However, in Baghdad, the people no longer feel safe enough provide actionable intelligence on local insurgents. A way to combat this is go door to door on presence patrols and hand them confidential questionairs(sp?) regarding local insurgent activity. Let the residents know that they need to fill out the forms that night and collect them on a combat patrol the next day (as the forces are likely to encounter some form of combat by basically letting the residents know where they will be the following day.)

The insurgency was not expected by the military planners. The American voting public does not understand that combating an insurgency is a crawl, not a sprint. We began fighting this insurgency in late 2003. By 2008 (5 years), we should have obvious progress in Iraq, if we are still doing the right things. If not, then I am all for a drastic change of direction, to include a complete withdrawal if that is what the American populus calls for.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Perhaps cleaning out all of these militias and collecting these weapons they've stashed would have been the smartest move. We have allowed these groups to exist, stockpile, and now run the streets in typical street gang fashion that are causing these problems we face now.

Are you honestly telling me that no one in planning this whole operation foresaw an insurgency? No one saw those who despise us to a point of death would rise up and fight us? Did no one take note of the fanaticism of certain elements of the population even before we went to war? If what you say is true then there needs to be a much wider span of firings. Common sense will dictate that any nation we attack, whether we do so for legitimate reasons or not, will have elements of their population radically opposed to our being there. Every war we've faced, we have seen insurgencies. And in a region of suicidal fanaticism and proliferation of weapons, even a novice could foresee issues.

 

[therealUT]

Perhaps cleaning out all of these militias and collecting these weapons they've stashed would have been the smartest move. We have allowed these groups to exist, stockpile, and now run the streets in typical street gang fashion that are causing these problems we face now.

Are you honestly telling me that no one in planning this whole operation foresaw an insurgency? No one saw those who despise us to a point of death would rise up and fight us? Did no one take note of the fanaticism of certain elements of the population even before we went to war? If what you say is true then there needs to be a much wider span of firings. Common sense will dictate that any nation we attack, whether we do so for legitimate reasons or not, will have elements of their population radically opposed to our being there. Every war we've faced, we have seen insurgencies. And in a region of suicidal fanaticism and proliferation of weapons, even a novice could foresee issues.

I believe they never foresaw the Iranian Shia joining arms with the Baathist Sunni. I also do not believe they foresaw Chechan rebels joining the fight. I think they figured the Baathists would hold out and that some Syrians would join the party.

Also, the stockpile of rifles is running extremely low for the insurgency. Many of the U.S. platoons are fighting against insurgents who are now armed with M1's, M14's, and Mausers. AK 47s and 74s are fewer and further between these days.

This is good for two reasons: first, it means that large gov't bodies are not as forward in their support of the insurgency anymore (for whatever reason.) Second, it means that if they continue to run low on basic arms, they are going to have to take the attack to actual armories in Iraq. This means they will have to revert to some conventional ops, which we do very well against.

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

If you were an insuregent would now be the time to ramp it up, or lay low and hope for a quick pull-out? Curious what some of the poeple with military experience think.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I believe they never foresaw the Iranian Shia joining arms with the Baathist Sunni.

Do you mean joining in terms of killing and kidnapping each other? Patrolling the streets for their opposites and executing them?

 

[cibai]

For all of those feeling the doom and gloom brought on by the mid term election results, I offer hope. For those rejoicing, I will bridle your enthusiasm. However, first and foremost, we are going to tackle the issue of Rumsfeld.

SecDef Rumsfeld was a more than competent SecDef. However, from the beginning, he ruffled feathers in the military community. He at the forefront of the largest military restructuring in our history, and the military community is a proud animal. A civilian does not get rid of Posts, Divisions, and Regiments without receiving some scars of his own.

Rumsfeld was also a large proponent of unconvential ops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The only major Army branch conducting 'business as usual' in OIF and OEF was the Infantry. Armor and Field Artillery units were basically retrained and refitted upon arrival in theater, to conduct infantry patrols. Once again, toes were stepped on.

At the point in which it seemed highly probable that the House and Senate would be turned over to the Democrats, the Brass who had an axe to grind concerning the previously stated subjects, became more vocal.

However, in the aftermath (and the nomination of Robert Gates), it is clear to see that the Brass who were screaming the loudest (besides Wesley Clark, who has apparently lost 'it'), were obviously more upset over the restructuring than the handling of Iraq. This is clear in the fact that Robert Gates is coming from the intelligence committee and will continue to stress unconventional ops and pacification efforts...so far, no outcry from the military elite.

Now, back to the election fallout. There will be no great fallout from these elections. These two years hold the promise of being two years of great legislation being passed. That is right. Many pundits are stating that the following two years will be lame duck years. I believe that both the Democratic and Republican Officials understand that holding their ground will be political suicide in 2008.

If the Democrats insist on passing purely liberal legislation, two things will happen. First, all of it will be vetoed, and the Dems might hold the House and Senate, however, they hold neither by a 2/3 majority. Second, it will send a message to voting centrists, that this is what they can expect if the Dems hold the House and Senate, and add the Whitehouse in 2008.

If the Republicans insist on vetoing less liberal, more centrist, legislation, then they will basically hand over the Whitehouse in 2008. However, if they show that they are willing to come across that aisle, and pass needed legislation, they provide themselves with a legitimate shot at holding the Whitehouse and at least winning back one of the houses.

When you say unconventional ops, you should just use the word torture, that way it will be clear what you are saying.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

When you say unconventional ops, you should just use the word torture, that way it will be clear what you are saying.

Pat your head and rub your stomach......

I am sure that is "exactly" what was meant........

k: