WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

home | about | tracker | comics

reply to the comment you are replying too
Posted by tgl on 2007-03-23 20:14:39 +0000

Kill 'Em All

Bush gonna veto money for the troops? At least the Republicans are holding the line on spending, the 2006 election cycle taught them _something_.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-03-24 05:57:46 +0000
tgl = The most cognizant political lines I've heard in 2007.

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-24 13:33:26 +0000
Ha! Not sure if the Dems are playing this one wisely. I think it's the right thing to do -- start withdrawing -- but I'm not yet convinced that Bush won't win the war on rhetoric on this. Then again, they've been pretty inept in the PR department recently.

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-28 14:52:37 +0000
You really can't make this sutff up. ``The clock is ticking for our troops in the field,'' Bush said in a speech this morning in Washington. ``If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible.'' Didn't Congress just pass $122-124 billion for the war effort? I'd love to have Democrats be responsible for the war in Iraq... and bring those troops home. Bush & Co. have had their time in the sandbox (no pun intended), recess is over.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-03-28 15:11:12 +0000
What gets me is that Bush pretends like he has America's support. 7 out of 10 people disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq, 6 out of 10 want us out of Iraq by 2008, and the last election was a disaster for him. He earnestly wants to do the right thing, but he has no idea what it is or even why people don't support him. It's like the kid in the sandbox who doesn't understand why the others don't want to play with all the cat shit.

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-28 15:12:59 +0000
An escalation I could support: Send in Urbina!

Posted by MF DU on 2007-03-28 15:26:40 +0000
It's like the kid in the sandbox who doesn't understand why the others don't want to play with all the cat shit. [earnestly, no sarcasm]That is the funniest and most incisive observation of the day. - LOL[/earnestly, no sarcasm]

Posted by Riotous Nutjob on 2007-03-28 16:37:54 +0000
I keep on thinking there will be a public opinion tipping point for this administration, but it's hard to even imagine it happening now. [outrage]What happens when there's a president/administration that truly does not care about its constiuents' opinions? How low can the approval ratings go? Why do people pay any attention to them anymore if the people in power just do not give a damn?[/outrage] Well, I guess that's why there's a Congress...er, yeah.

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-28 17:17:56 +0000
We've passed the tipping point. There is a 30-70 split -- on the question of George W. Bush. Those 30% are diehards and won't ever backdown. To them, support of the President can't be questioned. Not unlike the 30% that will never say a bad word about President Clinton. Bush has reached rock bottom. That 30% continue to have faith in him says a lot more about Americans than it does about Bush's performance. What's the opinion on the Vietnam War? I'd wager that 20-25% of the public thinks we cut-and-ran.

Posted by Riotous Nutjob on 2007-03-28 17:26:56 +0000
By "tipping point" I mean when the scales are tipped enough so that it will have an effect on how the administration handles how it's dealing with Iraq. The only thing I've seen so far that could be said to reflect public opinion is the sacking of Rumsfeld. Overall, the administration's tipping point has not very much to do with the actual 50-50 tipping point of public opinion.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-03-28 17:39:33 +0000
Can I just say that I am really enjoying this thread right now? Ok - continue...

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-03-28 17:43:58 +0000
Really? You think that a quarter of the country is of the opinion that we were doing the right thing and shoulda stayed there? How will Bush's percentage look in 6 months? 12?

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-28 17:54:37 +0000
Oh... that tipping point. Be prepared for the lamest of lamest ducks, I'm afraid.

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-28 17:56:45 +0000
Yeah. There is a portion of this country that is still bitter we left Vietnam. Here's up to 1971 , I'd be surprised if those numbers are drastically different now. People don't change.

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-03-28 17:59:00 +0000
Wow. The percentages are huge, esp. for the under 30 crowd.

Posted by Riotous Nutjob on 2007-03-28 18:07:30 +0000
During the '04 campaign this was in the news some (due to the Swiftboaters), and I remember how shocking it was to me that there were a decent number of people out there who truly thought we could have won in Vietnam if it had not been for the behemoth that is American Public Opinion.

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-28 18:08:54 +0000
Bush has been moving between 30-35 since his re-election. Er, maybe not, fall 2005 he was pulling 40%.

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-28 18:09:33 +0000
Under 30 crowd --> dumb asses.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-03-29 03:21:44 +0000
I try MF DU, and thank you.

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-29 03:46:38 +0000
Worst. Combover. Ever. If Bush accepts the funding (Hey, G Dubs... Take the money!!!) then it gives Cheney a convenient excuse to deny defeat: "Considering we were cut short by 25 years, I think we did a pretty good job!"

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-03-29 04:05:43 +0000
Hold on a second. The combover is pretty good. Seriously. Hey at least it isn't the oily 50 or 60 strands that some do.

Posted by tgl on 2007-03-29 12:46:24 +0000
Not a withdrawal. Interesting for a couple reasons: so many loopholes in the Senate and House bills (and who knows what the conference version will look like) that Bush wouldn't really be forced to do anything he isn't doing now, troop withdrawals tied to Iraqis not doing their jobs --seems reasonable to me, if you aren't going to learn to clothe yourself, we aren't going hold your hand forever--, up until the Surge we've only had _5,000_ trainers? Cripes.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-04-11 16:51:33 +0000
So Bush promises to veto the funding for the troops, saying he doesn't want to put an "artificial timetable" on an Iraq pull out. Well, how about a "real timetable", and maybe Bush should realize Americans want to withdraw.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-04-11 16:53:58 +0000
This article from today's front page Glob led me to the same conclusion.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-04-11 17:00:31 +0000
Tough stuff.

Posted by tgl on 2007-05-24 16:55:57 +0000
What he said. Democrats: Proving once again they are weak on terror.

Posted by tgl on 2008-07-22 02:19:01 +0000
It'd be funny if it wasn't so depressing. How many Time Horizons are there in the Republic of Iraq?.

E-mail to tgl@rideside.net to add your tumblr.
Find me on github.