What will the Dems do now that they control Congress?

[Ramo]

Cause the Dems need to balance Pelosi, not put her pal in place

Besides Iraq, Murtha's well to the right of Hoyer.

Chuck Todd's saying that this is basically Kabuki theatre. Pelosi gets to say that she's backing a more conservative Democrat for Leader and that the House isn't run like DeLay's autocracy. The Blue Dogs get to say that they're opposing Pelosi's presumably more liberal candidate. Murtha gets some payback for the boost he gave to Pelosi's leadership bid. And Hoyer still wins. Everyone's happy.

I still wish that there were a third choice who isn't so ethically compromised. Hell, I'd take Rahm Emmanuel in a heartbeat...

[Elok]

The Democrats' "I try to help but I'm incompetent" policy should be a nice change of pace from the Republicans' "I could help, but I'm a bastard so I won't." Functionally, not a whole lot will change.

[Odin]

Pelosi needs to keep the "we want impeachment now" bunch contained. The Dems will be in deep sh*t if they look like they are trying to get revenge.

[Drake Tungsten]

If by "quick withdrawal from Iraq" you mean endorsing the Baker commission's proposal of a 1-3 year phased withdrawal then you're right.

Try 4-6 months, champ...

Democrats poised to take control of Congress said Sunday that they would press to begin a phased U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq within four to six months, part of an agenda aimed at overhauling key aspects of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-usiraq13nov13,0,6032008.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Zkribbler]

Don't forget, the President is the Commander in Chief. He tells the military what to do and when.

All the Congress can do is cut off funding. And how's that going to look: "We actually voted for the war before we voted against it."

[RGBVideo]

time to stop trolling the thread

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

If by "quick withdrawal from Iraq" you mean endorsing the Baker commission's proposal of a 1-3 year phased withdrawal then you're right.

Try 4-6 months, champ...

Democrats poised to take control of Congress said Sunday that they would press to begin a phased U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq within four to six months, part of an agenda aimed at overhauling key aspects of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

what part of "begin" you do not understand, "champ"? Press Bush to BEGIN phased withdrawal, which lasts 1-3 years, within 4-6 months. So looks like he was, again, right and you were, again, wrong.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

All the Congress can do is cut off funding. And how's that going to look: "We actually voted for the war before we voted against it."

Exactly.

[Drake Tungsten]

So looks like he was, again, right and you were, again, wrong.

How can Oerdin be right when he says that the Dems will endorse a proposal from the Baker Commission that doesn't even exist yet?

Now, stop trolling the thread. We're trying to have a serious conversation in here...

edit:

Mr. Baker has already made some of his views known. In television interviews, some timed to promote a book he has just published, he has expressed skepticism that a rapid withdrawal can be accomplished without setting off chaos or civil war

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/washington/13military.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=f38aa620af37964c&hp&ex=1163480400&partner=homepage

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Try 4-6 months, champ...

Not going to happen, Champ... It will likely be a phased withdrawl over a 1-2 year period so that it ends at about the same time as Bush's Presidency. There just isn't enough votes for an immediate withdrawal plus there are 49 Republicans in the Senate.

[Drake Tungsten]

Not going to happen, Champ...

I certainly hope you're right...

[RGBVideo]

It seems like you had problems reading that sentence. I'm sorry, perhaps I hid it too well. Here, let me re-type it for you again:

what part of "begin" you do not understand, "champ"? The discussed plan was to press Bush to BEGIN phased withdrawal, one which lasts 1-3 years, within 4-6 months.

Whether or not the plan is official or indeed, whether or not the democrats will even pressure Bush to do it is completely irrelevant, since Oerdin defined it in his own post beforehand to last 1-3 years. After that you said that it would be 4-6 months according to an article, article which stated that it would probably take 4-6 months before the hypothetical plan would be pressured to begin. Therefore, the withdrawal will most certainly NOT last 4-6 months, and thus, you lied when you said that the phased withdrawal would last 4-6 months.

eagerly awaiting your next out-of-context quote so you can circlejerk about "PWNAGE LOL LOL" with kuci


counter-edit:

Mr. Baker has already made some of his views known. In television interviews, some timed to promote a book he has just published, he has expressed skepticism that a rapid withdrawal can be accomplished without setting off chaos or civil war

and this has exactly what to do with the fact that you were caught blatantly lying about an article you quoted, again?

[Drake Tungsten]

what part of "begin" you do not understand, "champ"? The discussed plan was to press Bush to BEGIN phased withdrawal, one which lasts 1-3 years, within 4-6 months.

The 1-3 year, "discussed plan" doesn't exist. Oerdin claimed that the Baker-led Iraqi Study Group has released a plan and that the Democrats were going to endorse it, but that simply isn't true. The Baker group hasn't even finished its interviews and discussions yet; no proposals will be released for a bit yet.

and this has exactly what to do with the fact that you were caught blatantly lying about an article you quoted, again?

It shows that...

1. The Baker group hasn't come to any conclusions yet.

and...

2. That Baker sure doesn't seem to be supportive of a quick withdrawal from Iraq.

After that you said that it would be 4-6 months according to an article, article which stated that it would probably take 4-6 months before the hypothetical plan would be pressured to begin.

I never said the withdrawal would be finished in 4-6 months, nor did I claim that the article said so. I barely said anything, actually; I quoted the lede of the story and linked to it so people could read it on their own.

and thus, you lied when you said that the phased withdrawal would last 4-6 months.

Honestly, your attempts to catch me in your invented lies are getting tiresome. The attention was flattering for a while, but now it's just getting sad. I just don't care about you as much as you care about me, VJ. I hope we can still be friends, though...

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The 1-3 year, "discussed plan" doesn't exist. Oerdin claimed that the Baker-led Iraqi Study Group has released a plan and that the Democrats were going to endorse it, but that simply isn't true. The Baker group hasn't even finished its interviews and discussions yet; no proposals will be released for a bit yet.

Again, this has nothing to do with the fact that you lied about the article. You've been lying a lot in this thread and it's precedessor, and the reason I'm pressing this fact is that I'm pretty sick of your lies, they've been threadjacking the thread for too damn long.

and this has exactly what to do with the fact that you were caught blatantly lying about an article you quoted, again?

It shows that...

1. The Baker group has come to any conclusions yet.

and...

2. That Baker sure doesn't seem to be supportive of a quick withdrawal from Iraq.

so it has nothing to do with that, thanks for clarifying.

After that you said that it would be 4-6 months according to an article, article which stated that it would probably take 4-6 months before the hypothetical plan would be pressured to begin.

I never said the withdrawal would be finished in 4-6 months, nor did I claim that the article said so. I barely said anything, actually; I quoted the lede of the story and linked to it so people could read it on their own.

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

If by "quick withdrawal from Iraq" you mean endorsing the Baker commission's proposal of a 1-3 year phased withdrawal then you're right.

Try 4-6 months, champ...

Democrats poised to take control of Congress said Sunday that they would press to begin a phased U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq within four to six months, part of an agenda aimed at overhauling key aspects of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Oerdin said that the hypothetical proposal would take 1-3 years to work. You reported with a half-assed insult and "try 4-6 months", then quoting an article "proving" you right since it contained the phrase "four to six months" -- in an entirely different context, in a context which stated that 4-6 months would be the time which it would take before the plan would be pressurized to begin instead of the time it would take before the plan would be finished.

Honestly, your attempts to catch me in your invented lies are getting tiresome. The attention was flattering for a while, but now it's just getting sad. I just don't care about you as much as you care about me, VJ. I hope we can still be friends, though...

I attack BS when I see it. Your posts became a combination of trolls and BS roughly six months ago.

[Drake Tungsten]

I attack BS when I see it.

Indeed. It's too bad you're just not any good at it...

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by VJ
eagerly awaiting your next out-of-context quote so you can circlejerk about "PWNAGE LOL LOL" with kuci

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I attack BS when I see it.

Indeed. It's too bad you're just not any good at it...

looks like my prediction was correct