Bush On Iraq: An Offer Congress Can't Refuse

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:18:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

My offer is this: nothing. Not even the $20,000 for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally. -Michael Corleone

So Bush has made his Michael Corleone offer to the Dems on Iraq:

President Bush on Tuesday invited Democrats to discuss their standoff over a war-spending bill, but he made clear he would not change his position opposing troop withdrawals. The White House bluntly said the meeting would not be a negotiation. [Bush said:]
It's time for them to get the job done, so I'm inviting congressional leaders from both parties — both political parties — to meet with me at the White House next week. At this meeting, the leaders in Congress can report on progress on getting an emergency spending bill to my desk. We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill, a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal and without handcuffing our generals on the ground. I'm hopeful we'll see some results soon from the Congress.

Levin and Obama have already caved. So why should Bush negotiate?

< Now 94 and Harmless, Why Is He Still in Jail? | Dem Prez Hopefuls Talk Iraq At Move On Virtual Town Hall >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Bush On Iraq: An Offer Congress Can't Refuse | 70 comments (70 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

My way or the highway. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:29:11 PM EST

Imagine that.

: I changed the title (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:30:57 PM EST

I like the Corleone reference better.

Change of tactics? (5.00 / 7) (#3)
by magster on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:31:53 PM EST

The President is a lost cause. I think it would be a better PR strategy to try to divide the GOP caucus in the house and senate, and demand they override the veto. Every time Iraq comes up for a vote, we peel off one or two votes. Worst case: the GOP Congress continues to be tied to the war.

Actually (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by andgarden on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:36:31 PM EST

That's a really good idea.


: I think so too. (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Edger on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:49:25 PM EST

There is no point in talking to Bush. He's too far gone.

Bush's idea of a compromise (5.00 / 6) (#6)
by TexDem on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:54:20 PM EST

has always been to have his idea agreed upon.

In Texas where he didn't have a choice, because at that time the TX Legislature was Dem., he just simply took credit for everything that was passed. He had no control because he would not have been able to sustain a veto. In areas where he had absolute control (executions) he never compromised.

Obama plays chicken with my husband's life (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:54:54 PM EST

Turning my husband's life over to George W. Bush minus any kind of oversight and believing that taking that course instead of exercising any of the authority the voters gave him is playing the worst game of chicken with my husband's life imaginable. Thanks Barack, I guess the democracy and everything the United States ever stood for is really dead now at my own party's hands this time. Thanks again.

Hey BTD? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:57:31 PM EST

Think MT is going to be "all kumbaya" next year if Obama is the nominee?


I don't care (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:03:57 PM EST

If Obama is going to be what we've seen, why in blazes should he be the nominee?

Maybe I'll help save us from him.


Well. . . (none / 0) (#20)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:22:05 PM EST

Maybe I'll help save us from him.

I can't sum up our difference of opinion any better than that. Your goal is to save the Democratic Party from Barack Obama.

It doesn't happen often, but I'm speechless.


If he does not get better? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:27:11 PM EST

How is he different from Hillary right now?


The question is. . . (none / 0) (#35)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:47:19 PM EST

how is he different from Giuliani?

You know, I've never thought Bloomberg had any chance running for Pres as an Independent in '08 but the way the blogosphere is going it could be '01 all over again!


Bllomberg was never a Rudy (none / 0) (#47)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:11:30 PM EST

and you know I never said he was.

As For Barack, come one. But your point is not well taken.

Obviously, if it is Obama-Rudy, I will be killing Rudy every day here.


Sorry. . . (none / 0) (#52)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:16:43 PM EST

Giuliani and Bloomberg were two separate thoughts.

Thought 1 -- If you succeed in damaging Obama and he does become the nominee the question to ask won't be how he differs from Clinton, but how he differs from Giuliani.

Thought 2 -- I'd hate to see Democratic party splitting have the same effect in 08 nationally and it had in 01 locally, notwithstanding the fact that I liked the 01 outcome.

Obviously, if it is Obama-Rudy, I will be killing Rudy every day here.

That's great except that slamming Giuliani here is unlikely to actually deny him any votes. Slamming Obama is. That's just a matter of who the audience is.


: In the GE? (none / 0) (#56)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:26:18 PM EST

Man, you werenlt around in 2003 were you? Kerry was killed. And he didn't lose becuase Dems did not vote for him.

PS. (none / 0) (#55)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:20:29 PM EST

Bllomberg was never a Rudy

You realize this is blogosphere heresy?


I am a longstanding heretic (none / 0) (#57)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:27:10 PM EST

For example, Obama does NOT walk on water.

Chocolate Jesus notwithstanding.


: You remind me of (5.00 / 2) (#60)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:35:21 PM EST

Jesse Jackson's old joke:
"The other day I was out on the lake in my row boat. There was another boat full of old ladies that overturned. I got out of my boat, walked across the water, picked up the ladies, and carried them back to shore.
The next morning I got the newspaper. The headline was JESSE CAN'T SWIM."

Larry, I can get very (5.00 / 4) (#12)
by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:04:24 PM EST

kumbaya when it's kumbaya time. There is a time, place, and season for everything. Kumbaya for Obama though.......let's see where he eventually winds up when kumbaya time comes around. I come from a very assertive family. If I don't ask for what I want then I must want for nothing and have no one to blame when I don't get what I didn't ask for.


Some Democrats (5.00 / 5) (#14)
by andgarden on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:07:44 PM EST

are still operating under the assumption that if we just played nice, Bush would recognize the error of his ways. We have the power that we fought so hard for last year, and we MUST USE IT.


: That boy is going to die blind (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:19:31 PM EST

and plunge screaming into the firey abyss. He is determined beyond reasoning to go out like that and nothing that I can ever say or do will deter the little that there is of that man from going way way way down in a blaze of glory only Satan can honestly appreciate.

: I said it before. (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by Edger on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:29:21 PM EST

I'll say it again - because it applies.

Trying to cut a deal with George Bush is like trying to cut a deal with Ted Bundy. If you get one it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

Obama (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by magster on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:58:59 PM EST

On Letterman, he talked about doing a Murthaesque bill rather than a timeline bill. Did I hear him right? If so, it's not a cave.

Prayers to your husband for a safe return.


Pffft (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:04:47 PM EST

HE said we will fund the war if Bush vetoes.

This spinning for Obama's cave in is getting ridiculous.


: We've voted to fund the troops. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by bablhous on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:28:51 PM EST

Bush is theatening to veto the funding we've already agreed to.
Once he vetoes, we should tighten the bill and send it back.
And continue to do that while we loudly point out that WE funded the troops
- again -
and just as loudly point out that HE vetoed the troop funding
- again -
Lather - Rinse - Repeat

If he puts his stuff up there (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:09:40 PM EST

I can have every reason to get all doe eyed for him. If he doesn't I have no reason. I am not against anybody willing to learn, make mistakes and then realize it and do what needs to be done to rectify situations. Those who can do those things have led America through hell and high water.


The Democrats should flatly (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Edger on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:02:33 PM EST

refuse Bush's "invitation" designed to let Bush set terms of discussion, and instead lead and set terms themselves. Counter with an "invitation" of their own to Bush to report on progress on ending the occupation to THEIR desks, and can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill sets a date certain for withdrawing the troops and ends the debacle.

Refuse to talk to him otherwise.

David Swanson described the situation rather succinctly on Sunday:

When Senator Russ Feingold and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid propose cutting off the funding for the war, they are proposing the only thing that can possibly benefit U.S. troops. In fact, there is no way to make any sense of the idea that they could possibly be hurting U.S. troops. The funding [bush wants] is not for the troops.
When President George Bush claims that the money is for the troops, he is quite simply lying. The funding is not for the troops.
When Senator Barack Obama or Senator Carl Levin claims to want to pressure Bush to end the war, while at the same time promising to fund the war forever in the name of funding the troops, we are being told something that cannot possibly make any sense. The funding is not for the troops. It is for the war. You can't end the war while providing it. You can't hurt a troop by denying it.

: It scares me that some of this funding (5.00 / 4) (#25)
by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:28:43 PM EST

is going to pay for more mercs because we haven't the soldiers to finish the job Bush style everyone. Perhaps my fears are irrational because Blackwater has become such a horror but something in my gut is certain that we are going to get even more Blackwater style mercs with this funding. Not all the mercs are coming from the U.S. either everyone. I'm told many are coming out of the Philippines and selectedly specifically for their aggressive ruthless behavior. The Merc contractors are hiring globally, not just Americans.

Great stuff! (5.00 / 4) (#28)
by CA JAY on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:30:25 PM EST

This is why I followed you to this site.

: Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:43:50 PM EST

I am writing what I think.
Some folks want me to clap louder.
I never have, at least not until election time.

I only like Democrats with spines. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Carolyn in Baltimore on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:42:59 PM EST

Sorry Mr. Obama - you are very attractive but you have recently gone further down my list. Appeasement never works with these guys. You are Vichy to Pelosi's DeGaulle.

Pelosi'07

It seems correct to say that Bush doesn't want the (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by kha on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:44:07 PM EST

money for the troops. Experience has proved that beyond reasonable doubt.

But why does he want money for the war? I believe the major reasons are to keep the war going to the end of his term. That way when the war finally ends and Iraq is recognized as lost, he will blame whoever is the next president.

Bush holds the country and our military hostage and Congress should remind Bush the last legitimate branch of government will not negotiate with hostage taking criminals.

: To get so deeply entrenched (none / 0) (#37)
by Edger on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:48:18 PM EST

that the military presence is permanent.

Hat tip (5.00 / 4) (#34)
by Edger on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:47:11 PM EST

to Patriot Daily

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon is considering a plan to extend the tours of duty for up to 15,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq, a defense official said Monday.
...
Because Petraeus believes the troop increase President Bush announced in January has produced some momentum in fighting violence in Iraq, Petraeus wants to maintain troops at that level past the summer, the official said.

It was just a temporary surge. Right. Sure.

Christ. Maybe stewie can go negotiate with bush?

Heh (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:48:19 PM EST

: Hey, I could change my handle.... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by Edger on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:52:40 PM EST

Snidely Whiplash?

I would never say. . . (5.00 / 4) (#39)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:49:19 PM EST

"the new MLW."

I've already been warned once for bad language.

TL is much different (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by CA JAY on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:05:08 PM EST

from MLW. Both sites though provide a great service. There's no way MSOC could adhere to the language rules here. It would be easier for Lehigh to defeat Florida in football...


: ok (none / 0) (#46)
by Stewieeeee on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:10:24 PM EST

with nice language.
i stand correcte on that point.

Yep (none / 0) (#42)
by Stewieeeee on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:01:15 PM EST

you were warned.


talkleft is the new my left wing (1.00 / 3) (#16)
by Stewieeeee on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:10:42 PM EST

apparently.

If you want the pro-Party cant (5.00 / 4) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:14:20 PM EST

You know where you can get it.

It ill behooves you to come to my posts and complain about what I write about. No one is holding a gun to your head.


every piece of news (1.00 / 2) (#26)
by Stewieeeee on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:29:05 PM EST

is just an excuse to say something snide about someone. if it hasn't been other bloggers it's the predictable little digs at any democrat who doesn't toe the BTD strategy.

take out the last sentence of this otherwise very informative post, and i'll stay. it's informative. it's clever. but then there's the last sentence. and sinking feeling every single piece of news is just an excuse to say something snide about someone.

don't and everyone will know what this blog is morphing into by your contributions/obsessions. every single piece of news is just becoming an excuse to say something snide about someone.

you're right. exercise my right to patronize a better blog. toodles.


Take out the last line? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:32:10 PM EST

Just for you.

No thanks.

Sheesh.

Here's my suggestion for you, read Jeralyn, Chris and John and skip me.


: BTD, keep beating your drum. (none / 0) (#65)
by cal11 voter on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 03:13:09 PM EST

I may not agree with you all the time, but I support your right to tell us your opinions. Actually, I enjoy reading your work.

Hey! (none / 0) (#21)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:23:40 PM EST

It ill behooves you to come to my posts and complain about what I write about.

what are blogs for?


How so? (none / 0) (#19)
by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:21:11 PM EST

He wants (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:25:13 PM EST

rah rah Dems no matter what. There are other webv sites for that, too many to count now. IF he does not like what Iwrite, he can go to those sites.

Or better yet, read Jeralyn and Chris and John's great posts on the law and related matters right here.


You want (1.00 / 2) (#43)
by Stewieeeee on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:04:33 PM EST

Dems to fail.

You opened the door.

You try to speak for others.

They will try to speak for you.

You want Dems to fail. You know they will be divided by your plan of action on Iraq, and you know that will have bad political consequences.

so you want dems to fail.

you try to speak for others.

they will return the favor.

or is that your thing? you get to decide what everyone else wants when they disagree with you and then scream blood murder when anyone says anything about what you want?

because it's obvious you want dems to fail.


Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:09:26 PM EST

I want Dems to succeed! You want to think what you want to think so that it squares with your world view. IT is just a lie from you.

As for me speaking for others, how in blazes am I doing that? As it happens, I lede most of my most controversial posts with the phrase "As always, I speak only for me."

This is utter BS from you.

No way (1.00 / 1) (#48)
by Stewieeeee on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:13:14 PM EST

I stated my case.

You know they will be divided. You want them to be divided. You must want them to fail.

to answer your question:

You just posted what it is you think I want.

That's an attempt to speak for me.

But if I do that about you, you might take offense? You might call it BS?

well what you just said about me above is BS.

do you not yet see how your methods of arguing on a blog are devoutly hypocritical?


Your case (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:14:29 PM EST

is just writing falsehoods.

I am done with you.

Enjoy the discussion with others.


You are writing falsehoods (1.00 / 1) (#54)
by Stewieeeee on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:19:13 PM EST

about levin and obama.

my case only sucks cause i'm -- LOL -- dude, i'm pretending to be you.

here's some truth:

levin and obama have NOT caved in to bush. they've just adopted a less partisan approach than you're happy with.
you want dems to succeed.

now. tell me I'm wrong about either of those things.


: Talk to the hand (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:28:08 PM EST

No more substance from me for you.

Not to mention Anne Nicole Smith's baby and (none / 0) (#68)
by oculus on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 07:08:06 PM EST

how very nice Paris Hilton is if only we'd get to know her better. Aawk.


Levin and Obama (none / 0) (#49)
by jarober on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:14:29 PM EST

The two of them realize something you don't:

Say Congress passes the bill you want
Iraq then descends into a nightmare - and no, what's there now isn't a nightmare. It will be far, far worse, and the people who come out on top will be enemies of the US
Oil prices will rise (a lot), and a regional war involving Saudi Arabia and Iran is probable, over Iraq

The President will be seen as the one who wanted to stay and fix the problem - who will look like the fools who allowed "Cambodia 2, the sequel" to happen?

Obama wants to have a shot at the White House during his lifetime, and doesn't want to see a repeat of the post Vietnam Republican ascendancy over that office. It's as simple as that. As to Levin, he doesn't want to lose his chair, and he knows that the chaos above would bring more Republicans to the Senate.

Answer this question (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:18:01 PM EST

You support the Iraq War don't you? MY recollection is you do.


He'll never answer a question (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Edger on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:57:06 PM EST

He can't hear your question. He's here only to regurgitate RWNJ talking points.


: I think it is important (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:58:45 PM EST

to know this when we consider his support for the Obama/Levin position.

: I think it is important (none / 0) (#64)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:58:50 PM EST

to know this when we consider his support for the Obama/Levin position.

How will oil prices rise a lot? (none / 0) (#51)
by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:16:14 PM EST

Iraq is a nightmare now (none / 0) (#61)
by CA JAY on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:43:01 PM EST

thanks to the Executive Branch of our government. The sooner we can have the "last helicopter leaving Saigon moment" and the sooner that President Edwards/Obama/Clinton can apologize to the Iraqis and world community, the better off the US will be.

Cheney has never cared about anything but oil and Halliburton profits. Bush 43, like many of the Right Wing, view war as a painfree game and are incapable of acknowledging failure or defeat. Pretty messed up psychologically...


Support the War? (none / 0) (#66)
by jarober on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 06:52:10 PM EST

I support the war as the least bad alternative right now. As I've explained before, I think the mistake was made in 1991 - we should have just let the Kuwait invasion go by - "one authoritarian regime with oil has taken over another authoritaria regime with oil - yawn". Once we went then, we created an enemy, and a conflict in the future was nearly inevitable.

For the reasons I outlined above, I think pulling out now would be a very, very bad idea. You think Iraq and the middle east are messy now? It will be far worse if you get your way.

Instead of trying to say that "I'm for the war, so I must be wrong", try actually addressing my points above.

: Try substantiating your points. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
by Edger on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 06:59:14 PM EST

Powerline or RedState must have something you can copy/paste.

: Sadly for you (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by andgarden on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 07:23:37 PM EST

Robert A. Taft is long gone.

An actual argument? (none / 0) (#70)
by jarober on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 07:29:16 PM EST

I suppose it's asking too much for people to read my points and engage them. far easier to make absurd historical riffs (and worse, ones that make no sense).

I Finally Understand Your Point (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 07:41:04 PM EST

Why stop now when it comes to war advice when your batting average is zero. Got to hit the ball once, right, and maybe finally you will hit the ball this time.

I will take my chances on lotto, better odds.


: His point, and his problem, is that (none / 0) (#72)
by Edger on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 07:50:23 PM EST

he supports a war even when there isn't one going on. So he sits in front of his keyboard mourning and fantasizing of glory days.

Actually ... (none / 0) (#73)
by Sailor on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 07:55:38 PM EST

... it was a simple question with an easy answer. Provide links.


Links? (none / 0) (#74)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 08:04:06 PM EST

Here ya go