Anti-war groups retreat

[TheSarge]

After a series of legislative defeats in 2007 that saw the year end with more U.S. troops in Iraq than when it began, a coalition of anti-war groups is backing away from its multimillion-dollar drive to cut funding for the war and force Congress to pass timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.

In recognition of hard political reality, the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come.

The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November and bring the votes to pass more dramatic measures. But it is a long way from the early months of 2007, when Democrats were freshly in power and momentum for a dramatic shift in Iraq policy seemed overpowering.

“There was a consensus that last year was not productive,” John Isaacs, executive director of Council for a Livable World, said of a meeting attended by a coalition of anti-war groups last week. “Our expectations were dashed.”

The meeting, held at an office on K Street, was attended by around 20 representatives of influential anti-war groups, including MoveOn.org and Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, which spent $12 million last year opposing the war.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7949.html

[Lord Undies]

“There was a consensus that last year was not productive,” John Isaacs, executive director of Council for a Livable World, said of a meeting attended by a coalition of anti-war groups last week. “Our expectations were dashed".

Translation:  "We are miserable failures."

The meeting, held at an office on K Street, was attended by around 20 representatives of influential anti-war groups, including MoveOn.org and Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, which spent $12 million last year opposing the war.

How many poor illness-ravaged children could $12 million cure?  How many homes for the homeless could $12 million buy?  How much gold to pave the streets of New Orleans could $12 million buy? 

Translation:  "We're hypocrites."

“We got our heads together and decided to go a different way,” Isaacs said. “The consensus was not to keep beating our heads against the wall trying to block every funding bill — not because we don’t agree with it, but because we don’t have the votes.”

They are trying to convince the public that their representative in congress are voting against the wishes of the majority of the Americans they represent.  Of course, the opposite of that is the reality.  These "antiwar groups" are the ones hell bent on denying the American people true representation.

Translation:  "We don't really have the support we want you to believe we have."

The new strategy doesn’t mean that the groups won’t be active during budget battles. “The budget debates provide an enormously rich opportunity to engage the public,” said former Maine Rep. Tom Andrews of the group Win Without War. “We’re spending $8 [billion] to $10 billion a month.”

As opposed to double that amount we are spending on greens fees, bingo cards, and casino trips so the "senior citizens" of this nation, the wealthiest demographic to ever occupy the earth, can enjoy useless retirement at the young taxpayer's expense.

Translation: "We don't know a damn thing about economics, but it sounds good, so we say it anyway."

[DixieBelle]

^damn fine work there Undies.

[Lord Undies]

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama will “support all common-sense efforts to ensure that President Bush does not tie the hands of future presidents through agreements with the Iraqi government.”

Is "common-sense efforts" a code phrase for "empty suits"?  So we tie the hands of this president to insure untied hands of future presidents?  I think I am missing the benefit, but not the irony.

Translation:  "Damn Bush!  We will not allow him to do what is best for the nation at the expense of the democrats!"

In December, Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) sent a strongly worded letter to Bush asking for information about what types of agreements the president planned to enter into and urging that he consult with Congress first. It was signed by Clinton and Democratic Sens. Robert P. Casey Jr. (Pa.), Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), Carl Levin (Mich.) and Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.).

OH NO!  NOT THE "STRONGLY WORDED LETTER"!!   

Translation:  "We are weak and ineffective.  We insist on being forewarned so we can be forearmed."

(I'm not through yet - just busy. )

[Lord Undies]

In the House on Tuesday, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill that would make clear that no federal money could be spent to implement an agreement Bush reaches with Iraq unless it’s in the form of a congressionally approved treaty.

That is a brilliant strategy!  The President will never veto such a perfect bill!

Translation:  "Rep. DeLauro has no concept of how our government works.  She thinks a bill is a way to one-up President Bush, and we support that idea, as foolish as it is."

The anti-war movement also thinks it has a winning argument when it comes to the length of time Americans are willing to see U.S. forces in Iraq. Roughly half of Americans recently surveyed by CBS News want most U.S. troops out within a year, and more than half think it was a mistake to invade in the first place. Every Democratic candidate for president has promised to withdraw almost all troops from Iraq within the first year of his or her presidency.

CBS takes its polls on Nob Hill in the middle of the day and speaks primarily to illegal alien housekeepers.  The democrats are buying it, too.  That is a good thing.

Translation: "The USA is too close to victory and we must do something right away to stop it."   

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I thought the president was the only one empowered by the Constitution to negotiate treaties?

fuggin' usurpers

And what is it that they fear about long term stability and strategic partnership in Iraq?

[Lord Undies]

Earlier this week, Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul Qadir said U.S. troops might need to remain in Iraq until 2018, which could cost the United States $1 trillion or more between now and then, according to Congressional Budget Office projections. Bush said recently that it is “fine with me” if U.S. troop levels remain the same in Iraq, if Army Gen. David Petraeus recommends such a deployment.

Why is it assumed the USA cannot create a partnership with Iraq?  Why is it assumed the USA cannot be compensated in a complimentary agreement with the government of Iraq?  I know history isn't on my side with this question, but President Bush has an opportunity to forge a relationship with one nation in the Middle East which could be wildly beneficial toboth parties.

Translation:  "We can only speculate if those speculations make this President appear to be making a terrible mistake."