Nothing says that next administration will be Democratic.

Posted by hhemwm at 03/29/2007

No way: Bush and Cheney will run out the clock and dump their mess on the next (Democratic) administration.

This would be the typical way to handle things by a spoiled, rich, preppie kid from New Haven, CT. Have a big party, give expensive gifts to you supposed friends and suckups, get drunk on all your power, prance around with a flight suit on, brag about being a "Wartime president" then walk out the door and let someone else clean up the mess. He's been doing it all his life, why change now

Posted by COProgressive at 03/29/2007

Finally, the Dems have shown what they are capable of! Thank God they have started putting the kibosh on the Cheerleader-in-Chief.

Posted by bsbuster at 03/29/2007

I agree with HHEMWM -- it's awfully presumptuous of them to throw that parenthetical in there about the next administration being democratic. It seems certain to me, however, that regardless of who gets to be the next president, he/she is going to be stuck cleaning up Dubbya's mess. I think the recent efforts of Congress are commendable, but anyone who thinks we're withdrawing from Iraq under Bush/Cheney is delusional.

Posted by feijiefu at 03/29/2007

They will dump Iraq off on the Dems. unless we start impeaching the bastards now! Starting with Gonzo!

Posted by samellison at 03/31/2007

I, like most here, vote choice c) And no proof that "(Democratic) administration" will come to pass either. If I were betting (saying this as an Independent/Democrat) I'd say the Republicans have a better shot. Unless another Democratic candidate comes forward, I think both Giuliani and Big Bombs McCain (strong nausea waves starting at mention of "Mr. Maverick") blathering on about "can't give in to the terrorists" and all of that crap have a better shot than anyone else in the field. Americans have a hard time letting go of no-hope wars because, frankly, they like war. They'd rather just gripe about them than actually end them. Remember, Nixon was elected in the midst of Vietnam. Tells you all you need to know.

Posted by bohlike at 04/1/2007

I picked d) "Hard to say." C) would have been my second choice but I do believe in the proverbial "three chances." Given a choice between fat, slim, and none, I'll always pick "slim," especially in this case. I'm inclined to agree that even partial withdrawal even by the end of 2008 is not bloody likely, but who knows? The Bush administration does seem to be imploding, albeit in slow mo.

Posted by w_m_bear at 04/1/2007

NO WAY, if for no other reason than both Hillary & Obama have aleady allowed for US troops remaining in Iraq after '08. Moreover, HRC has backed the permanent bases that now exist. Imperium semper.

Posted by sloper at 04/2/2007

George Bush is a classic example of a person who never had to work a hard day in his life. If he didn't like what he was doing (Air Force), make a call to Daddy, everything gets taken care of. If he has a failed business (I think 14, not counting his fine presidency), don't worry, Daddy or the Saudi's will fix it. This guy couldn' run a baseball team. Why did anyone think he would be a good president? What a quagmire we're in. Kids dying over there everyday. No plan. I can't believe this is the country I grew up in. Torture accepted. Lies-the norm. Everyone blaming the "liberal media", when 90% of that same media is owned by conglomerates. I joined the USN 27 years ago because I felt that what happened with the Iran crisis was something worth fighting for. They took our people because our way of life seemed to threaten them. Now we are bogged down with Iraq...and all our enemies know it. We took our eye off the prize (Bin Ladan)...and now we have to keep on keeping on. I say it's time to impeach this rich and priveleged loser. Then maybe I will feel that America is what its supposed to be...not what some Republican loser thinks it should be.

Posted by Bill F11 at 04/2/2007

They will stall and kill the clock for a Dem. president to deal with. Thats why we can see 8 years of Democratic rule coming up.

Posted by gator9 at 04/2/2007

He will run out the clock and take every opportunity to make the Dems look bad. There is no real dynamic which could change this unless and its a big unless the Rep leadership walks into his office and convinces him to roll over. Id give that a 10% chance.

Posted by fellowhuman99 at 04/3/2007

I think the Dems are being very diligent on this issue, but with Bush having no intention of working with Dems or listening to the voters who he despises anyway, he won't budge. The wimpy Repugs don't have a spine so they will stand by their man no matter what. What I can't believe is how unbalanced CNN has been on the Dems, they are taking the repugs side these days...has anyone noticed this? I am actually quite stunned about the coverage in the last weeks.

Posted by denisec at 04/3/2007

BILL F11, I agree with everything you say in your post, and thank you for your service in the Navy. but, FYI, they didn't take"... our people because our way of life seemed to threaten them.' They took our people because we had been attacking and subverting their way of life by deposing their democratically elected leader - Mosadich - and installed and maintained in power a tyrannical despot, the Shah. One of the few times Bush has publicly told the truth is when, shortly after '9/11', he said the "War on Terror" is a "Crusade". The people of the Mid-East know better than Americans that the Crusaders don't leave of their own accord; they must be driven out.

Posted by blueCedars at 04/4/2007

Do people believe Democrats are less imperialistic than Republicans? As in the UK and Australia, people are waking up to the fact that so-called 'left' or progressive parties have supported and very often instigated brutal foreign policy goals. It's time to give up on fake democracy and have a real democratic revolution not the choice to vote for 2 shades of the same oligarchic stream as happened in ancient Greece. Come on America this is the only chance we may ever have.

Posted by Sweep at 04/4/2007

If the Democrats were serious about ending the war, they would simply do nothing in response to Bush's veto. But, of course, the Democrats want to keep the war going.

Posted by peacemeow at 04/6/2007

As long as we keep having “serious” conversations of AI (American Idol), Survivor, Beauty and the Geek, The Sopranos, Anna Nicole’s death, baby, fortune, etc., Desperate Housewives, Sex and the City… what else am I missing? We can keep complaining all we want about flying-monkey Bush and half-rotten cyborg Cheney. These guys must be kicked (literally) in their behinds out of Our white house tomorrow and somebody, PLEASE!, get us out of the middle east in a reasonable fashion, stop the job bleeding to other countries and salary discrepancies between the CEOs, board members, share holders and the working class, negotiate some kind of healthcare (not free but affordable), ask some real questions about 9/11, reinvent the CIA, NSA, FBI…..OMG. Any ideas?

Posted by bkuim01 at 04/6/2007

I chose 'unlikely'. Judging by the results perhaps I was a bit optimistic. On the other hand, Rep. Dennis Kucinich has introduced legislation in the House (HR 1234) calling for withdrawl. The full text, not too long, can be found at Kucinch.us. I recommend checking it out & urging your Rep. to support it.

Posted by Qris J at 04/7/2007

I chose "hard to say" because I didn't want to seem naive or cynical.

It's great to see gator9 stating a kind of hopefullness, even if indirect and ocho anos en la futuro, pero yo soy un "gator" de universidad de Florida, tambien.

Posted by lewwelge at 04/7/2007

Lo sciento. No "pero" yo estoy un gator, por que estoy.

Posted by lewwelge at 04/7/2007

This guy couldn' run a baseball team. Why did anyone think he would be a good president?

Posted by BILL F11 04/02/2007 @ 6:41pm

Bush was picked to run in 1999 by a small group of extremely rich, extremely powerful Republican power brokers who figured that guy, being the dimp he is, would be easy to manipulate (given a real power behind the throne like Cheney) and therefore do exactly what they wanted. They didn't care whether he was competent, incompetent, illiterate, or what, let alone had the makings of a "good president." They just wanted malleable, malleable, malleable. And malleable they got except for one small thing they hadn't reckoned on. Like John Clare's "Badger," once he's bitten on to an idee fixe, Bush never lets go his hold. Now, something called "victory" in something called "the war in Iraq" (it ISN'T a "war" but an occupation ergo victory is logically imposssible) happens to be the idee fixe that he's bitten on to. Ain't no lettin' go, folks. He's like the archetypal NRA type: "They'll have to pry my gun from my dead, stiff fingers."

Posted by w_m_bear at 04/7/2007

What makes anyone think Iraq will be different? So far Congress has not been able to stop them.The Supreme Court has failed to stop them, and the popular vote hasn't been able to stop them.

Posted by du2vye at 04/10/2007

Think of the Imus episode of the past few days and tell me with a straight face that he does not represent the underlying attitudes of the majority of Americans. After you do that tell me with a straight face that either Obama or Clinton can become President in 2008. Imus sadly is the perfect representation of this country.

Posted by billsheasf at 04/10/2007

Honesty has gone from the minds and hearts of people of this country and they are afraid to come together. Every Saturday at noon at the corner of Mulberry and College Ave. in Fort Collins Colorado, a number of residents pick a corner to stir support for or against the war or whatever you want to call it. What a waste. Why not make a real statement, meet in the middle of this huge intersection together and say we want peace at any and all cost. So what if someone says the USA lost a war. Big fu*king deal. Just imagine the support the USA could muster from people the world over if the USA just up and left and said, "sorry, we shouldn't be here (Iraq) in the first place."

Posted by ricchiuti at 04/11/2007

The democrats should just say, " Here's the funding for the war and then some. If you veto it, you won't get another dollar for your nasty little quagmire, and it will be YOU (George Bush) who cut off the funding for the war". Now back to reality. The democrats are too spineless to stand up to Bush, but I think the conditions of the war will get so out of hand that something dramatic will HAVE to be done before Bush leaves office.

Posted by tyrodin at 04/11/2007

Not only will they dump Iraq on the Dems but they will also manipulate and misrepresent the inherent difficulties of the situation on the campaign trail against the Dems with " I told you so, you should have elected a Republican". Then,again, who knows what the Dems will do with the issue. The only solution is a new way of doing politics.We must ground political discourse and begin at the bottom.

Posted by G.G.G. at 04/11/2007

We’re not leaving!(unless they toss us out ala Vietnam.)

Sadly, our only true exit strategy is: we’ll leave when they’re out of oil.

Sadly, we went to bring Democracy in and to take oil out.

Truly I know all that …

And in all honesty no US politician is going to buck big oil and our serious oil addiction.

Posted by hkaplan at 04/12/2007

We’re not leaving!(unless they toss us out ala Vietnam.)

Sadly, our only true exit strategy is: we’ll leave when they’re out of oil.

Sadly, we went to bring Democracy in and to take oil out.

Truly I know all that …

And in all honesty no US politician is going to buck big oil and our serious oil addiction.

Posted by hkaplan at 04/12/2007