Betsy's Page 
      



HOME



Betsy neither necessarily uses,
nor endorses,
the products advertised on this site.








The 2008 Weblog Awards



The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree



Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.

e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com




Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.



Site Feed

Buy Conservative Advertising





 

Monday, February 26, 2007

Expect the deauthorization plan to go the way of the Murtha slow-bleed plan

 
It turns out that the Democrats are finding that it is very hard to run a war from the Congress when the president is opposed to your actions. So now they have come up with a plan to deauthorize the war and say that our troops should just be used to train the Iraqi forces and not be used for combat. Hey, isn't that basically what Bush was doing for most of 2006 while the situation kept deteriorating and all the Democrats demanded that he alter? Why do they think it would be any more conducive to peace in Iraq than it was last year?

And if they've lost Chuck Hagel from their move, they've lost the whole ballgame. Bob Novak reports today that even Hagel wouldn't support such a move in the Senate. And with Lieberman opposing it, that means they don't even have a majority much less the 60 votes they'd need to get the deauthorization voted on the Senate floor.

I think they'll just have to content themselves, even if it won't satisfy their base, with lots of oversight hearings accompanied by much sniping.

Labels:


0 comments



Comments:
 
It turns out that the Democrats are finding that it is very hard to run a war from the Congress when the president is opposed to your actions. So now they have come up with a plan to deauthorize the war and say that our troops should just be used to train the Iraqi forces and not be used for combat. Hey, isn't that basically what Bush was doing for most of 2006 while the situation kept deteriorating and all the Democrats demanded that he alter? Why do they think it would be any more conducive to peace in Iraq than it was last year?

And if they've lost Chuck Hagel from their move, they've lost the whole ballgame. Bob Novak reports today that even Hagel wouldn't support such a move in the Senate. And with Lieberman opposing it, that means they don't even have a majority much less the 60 votes they'd need to get the deauthorization voted on the Senate floor.

I think they'll just have to content themselves, even if it won't satisfy their base, with lots of oversight hearings accompanied by much sniping.

Labels:


0 comments



Comments: Post a Comment




This page is powered by Blogger.