Weakened Bush set to lose a second ally

The Daily Mail ^ | 10th November 2006

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

He HAS to, because the alternative is to be forced to withdraw from Iraq and give the jihadis the victory they seek.

Withdrawing from Iraq would be incalculably worse than withdrawing from Vietnam, because Charlie didn't feel the urge to follow us back here and keep killing Americans.

[nmh]

Well, he didn't "have to".

They could quietly redo their strategy behind the scenes and NOT give them another victory. Bush is not the stand up guy I had hoped for. When was the last time a Demoncrat while in the majority or minority did this.

Heck, I'd keep Rumsfeld on board to drive them nuts.

[monkeywrench]

They don't like him because he is holding up funds and tied their getting paid to cleaning up all the corruption.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Heck, I'd keep Rumsfeld on board to drive them nuts.

Unlike what you seem to think, being President involves doing real-world things that have real-world consequences, and there isn't any time to go a$$-hatting just to annoy others, no matter how much you dislike them.

[txrangerette]

I never believed that. I don't understand where that sentiment came from, that some kind of deal trading Rummy for Bolton had been struck. I made no sense to me in this real world, given the players and all the circumstances here.

[nmh]

Rumsfeld was actually effective.

I believe they underestimate the length of the war and persistence of these terrorists but you can't just pull out. They may try to redress the problem but it will be the same. They'll have to "stay the course".

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

I believe they underestimate the length of the war and persistence of these terrorists but you can't just pull out.

The Democrats can and will do just that, unless they can get something better.

31,000,000 AINOs voted to stab the troops in the back. If ye want to prevent that, you're REALLY going to have to give up a bunch of other things.

[Miss Marple]

Do they vote in party caucus for the leader of that party, or do they vote as a whole for the leader of the Senate they want?

[redbaiter]

Bush should nominate John Kerry instead. They either block him, and have to explain why (too French! oh, wait...), or vote him in and lose a Senate seat. With all respect to Mr Bolton, we lose nothing, and it would freaking hilarious to watch. And if they turn Kerry down, well OK, nominate Bolton again.

[MeekMom]

Thanks Mrs. Ivan for the thread.
It is a sad state of affairs. But, me being a Christian, it just means the Lord is coming back sooner, rather than later.

[RightWhale]

It is unfortunate that one of the leading Ds acting as spokesman said the nomination is DOA. That kind of attitude will do considerable damage to D prospects in '08. Just very darned unfortunate. Yep.

[LibKill]

I like the way you think!

[veronica]

We grow strong through adversity. When life is easy we can become complacent. I am afraid the GOP became complacent. Now the party gets to redefine itself. That has to start at the top. Bush's mettle will be tested. Will he stick to his principles or acquiesce to the Democrats? The answer will tell us what is to come in 2008 and beyond.