The only failure of the newly elected Congress was not enough Democrats were among the newly elected to give them enough of a majority to override vetos or obstructionist legislative maneuvers like filibusters or cloture. If the Dems gain enough seats in this year's elections it won't matter if Huckleberry is elected to the Presidency.

There was also the failure on the Submitters part to correctly label the surge in Iraq. It's actually been a success, violence is down, attacks are down, and troops aren't being killed at the same pace as before.

So, I'm going to -1.

Right, they voted FOR things they'd told us they were AGAINST because they don't have strength in numbers.

Well...isn't it a given that Bush is the biggest failure? We've just learned to accept it and become more critical of things that can actually be improved.

I'd consider the Dem controlled Congress a success, actually.

Any year that the Congress can't get crap done is good, because all Congress does anymore is tax & spend and take away rights. If they're hampered in those efforts, I say HOORAY!

Jolonco: There was also the failure on the Submitters part to correctly label the surge in Iraq. It's actually been a success, violence is down, attacks are down, and troops aren't being killed at the same pace as before.

So, I'm going to -1.

It has failed to achieve its actual purpose which was to give the Iraqis "breathing space" in which to begin the process of governing their own country. Despite the space, the Iraqis have accomplished none of the legislative benchmarks that Bush originally indicated could be accomplished within the first 90 days of the surge. So according to Bush in January 2006, the surge has failed to accomplish its goals. But that was then. The surge is now a "success" only because the press has again allowed Bush to move the goalposts in.

Not so much of a failure as a resounding "MEH". Business as usual.

BritneysSpeculum: It has failed to achieve its actual purpose which was to give the Iraqis "breathing space" in which to begin the process of governing their own country. Despite the space,

So it was a success, but the Iraqi's have yet to capitalize on it.

Just pointing out you contradicted yourself there. If the purpose was to provide the space, and the space was provided, it succeeded at its purpose.

Boojum2k: So it was a success, but the Iraqi's have yet to capitalize on it.

Just pointing out you contradicted yourself there. If the purpose was to provide the space, and the space was provided, it succeeded at its purpose.

I understand your point, but you could also argue that the surge has become an even greater crutch for the Iraqi leaders permitting their inactivity, which is contrary to its stated purpose, and thus a failure by the terms established by Bush last year. Or even if I concede that it is a success in the short term, it will be a failure in the long term since it enabled the Iraqis to do nothing. That is sort of the sum of Murtha's argument. As long as we are responsible for providing security and putting our men at risk, the Iraqis will never come together to assume that mantle, thus extending the continuing need for putting our guys in harms way. In other words, the surge may be a tactical success, but it is not a strategic one.

Boojum2k: BritneysSpeculum: It has failed to achieve its actual purpose which was to give the Iraqis "breathing space" in which to begin the process of governing their own country. Despite the space,

So it was a success, but the Iraqi's have yet to capitalize on it.

Just pointing out you contradicted yourself there. If the purpose was to provide the space, and the space was provided, it succeeded at its purpose.

Read it again, neotard.

in which to begin the process of governing their own country.

Hasn't happened yet. I suppose you could call it a 'glass half-full' situation, but I bet the families of the troops coming home in boxes would disagree.

Either way, there's no contradiction. You conveniently left out this part:

Despite the space, the Iraqis have accomplished none of the legislative benchmarks that Bush originally indicated could be accomplished within the first 90 days of the surge. So according to Bush in January 2006, the surge has failed to accomplish its goals.

The surge has not accomplished the goals that the President himself laid out.

/selective quotation FTW
//$deity you right wingnuts are bad losers
///emperor, no clothes, etc

They tried.

Bush on the other hand...

Evil Otto

Yep, you certainly used selective quotation, not to mention your lack of reading comprehension. Unless you thought the surge was to march into the Iraqi legisalture and force them at gunpoint.

Also, define what makes a "right wingnut" to you, because under any rational definition, I don't qualify. On second thought, don't bother. I've obviously offended your religious sensibilities, and must be declared ungood thoughtcriminal.

BritneysSpeculum: I understand your point, but you could also argue that the surge has become an even greater crutch for the Iraqi leaders permitting their inactivity, which is contrary to its stated purpose, and thus a failure by the terms established by Bush last year. Or even if I concede that it is a success in the short term, it will be a failure in the long term since it enabled the Iraqis to do nothing. That is sort of the sum of Murtha's argument. As long as we are responsible for providing security and putting our men at risk, the Iraqis will never come together to assume that mantle, thus extending the continuing need for putting our guys in harms way. In other words, the surge may be a tactical success, but it is not a strategic one.

There should be a term for something like that, when someone "enables" others to continue to fail rather than forcing them to confront their issues.

The greatest failure was the Democrats in congress inability to compromise, thus getting nothing worthwhile done.

Hav a nutter cupa coffee eh: The greatest failure was the Democrats in congress bush's inability to compromise, thus getting nothing worthwhile done.

Fixed that for ya.

-1

/62 repuke filibusters in one year.
//63 is the record for a term.

The greatet success? Bush finally found his farking veto pen.

Where where you 6 years ago, dipshiat?

submitter: you've got fail.

couple of things:

1) the "surge" has actually seemed to stem violence - at least in baghdad.

2) the democratic congress has a razor thin majority in the senate and has faced a record number of republican filibusters - not to mention the fact that bush finally found his veto pen. so you can't blame them for not getting legislation through. plus - they've actually been doing what congress has failed to do for years: taking their oversight role seriously.

Mordant: There should be a term for something like that, when someone "enables" others to continue to fail rather than forcing them to confront their issues.

What is "embolden"?

Dancin_In_Anson: The greatet success? Bush finally found his farking veto pen.

Where where you 6 years ago, dipshiat?


What would he have vetoed? He & his congress passed anything they wanted and didn't pass anything Bush didn't approve of.

BritneysSpeculum: Mordant: There should be a term for something like that, when someone "enables" others to continue to fail rather than forcing them to confront their issues.

What is "embolden"?

It's a synonym for embiggen.

You know, the Democrats acheived more in their of their first "Hundred Hours" agenda than the Republicans accomplished of their Contract with America after the '94 elections.

By comparison the Democrats have been extraordinarily competent.

Black_Flame: You know, the Democrats acheived more in their of their first "Hundred Hours" agenda than the Republicans accomplished of their Contract with America after the '94 elections.

By comparison the Democrats have been extraordinarily competent.

Too bad America didn't sue them for breach of contract.

Dingfod: The only failure of the newly elected Congress was not enough Democrats were among the newly elected to give them enough of a majority to override vetos or obstructionist legislative maneuvers like filibusters or cloture. If the Dems gain enough seats in this year's elections it won't matter if Huckleberry is elected to the Presidency.

No. I'm a Democrat and a Liberal, and Nancy and Harry are worthless, spineless, losers. We need new leadership. Period. They lead nothing. They just complain, and you buy into it.

MorningConstitution: -1

/62 repuke filibusters in one year.
//63 is the record for a term.

Heh. Just from an outside observer's point of view, why was it considered just like "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" two years ago?

Since most don't seem to have read the article, the quote below is the real meat of it.

"Harman's bill is called the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act."When HR 1955 becomes law, it will create a commission tasked with identifying extremist people, groups, and ideas. The commission will hold hearings around the country, taking testimony and compiling a list of dangerous people and beliefs."

Hav a nutter cupa coffee eh: The greatest failure was the Democrats in congress inability to compromise, thus getting nothing worthwhile done.

You prolly mean "submit to the GOP agenda" .

Can I pick some dumbass subject to vault to the "greatest failure of 2007?"

Are you farking people that stupid? Really are you that farking dumb? I look at Americans in a certain way.. you're a disgrace but I don't like to look at you as something that is so helpless as to need basic help.

It's a synonym for embiggen.

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

glaurunge: Since most don't seem to have read the article, the quote below is the real meat of it.

"Harman's bill is called the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act."When HR 1955 becomes law, it will create a commission tasked with identifying extremist people, groups, and ideas. The commission will hold hearings around the country, taking testimony and compiling a list of dangerous people and beliefs."

Jesus Christ. It's HUAC all over again. Who gets to play McCarthy this time around?

FlashHarry : They've actually been doing what congress has failed to do for years: taking their oversight role seriously.

Bullshiat, name me one thing in which the have reigned in the federal powers? In fact they have passed an enormous federal spending bill bigger than dreams of, and expanded wiretapping and "anti-terrorism" measures like the homegrown terrorism act.

Yea the Democratic congress has been a success, for the federal government, its not a success for the people by any stretch of the imagination.

This

I'm so tired of that damned Democratic Congress!

All they did was concede to Bush after several delays of trying to counteract him!

Quick, let's go back to having a Republican Congress where they conceded to Bush instantaneously!

FlashHarry: .....
2) the democratic congress has a razor thin majority in the senate and has faced a record number of republican filibusters - not to mention the fact that bush finally found his veto pen. so you can't blame them for not getting legislation through. plus - they've actually been doing what congress has failed to do for years: taking their oversight role seriously.

Isn't this the same excuse the Republican Congress used? Personally, I think think razor thin margins are the best for everyone. The less Congress does the better.

smeegle: Hav a nutter cupa coffee eh: The greatest failure was the Democrats in congress inability to compromise, thus getting nothing worthwhile done.

You prolly mean "submit to the GOP agenda" .



See that 'damned if you do damned if you dont' mentality? Congress got dicked this year. Fact is we need a change from the top down.

I think this (and next) deadlocked year are GREATLY preferred to the running amok politics that lasted from 01-06.

The only failure of the newly elected Congress was not having enough votes to stop all the Bush administration failures.

Dingfod: The only failure of the newly elected Congress was not enough Democrats were among the newly elected to give them enough of a majority to override vetos or obstructionist legislative maneuvers like filibusters or cloture. If the Dems gain enough seats in this year's elections it won't matter if Huckleberry is elected to the Presidency.

This is the whole story right here. The hand wringing over the ineffectuality of the "Democrat Controlled Congress" is political haymaking by obstructionist Rethuglican party hacks and Fringe Leftists nostalgic for Comintern. It is not a Democrat (sic) controlled congress. It is a Democratically Lead congress, which gets lead right into the wall of revanchist conservatives digging in their heels to prevent anything happening that might possibly be *gasp* good for the country.

Jolonco: There was also the failure on the Submitters part to correctly label the surge in Iraq. It's actually been a success, violence is down, attacks are down, and troops aren't being killed at the same pace as before.

Yes, violence is down slightly, but that may be more to one of the leaders calling for a stop to any violence for 6 months. Those 6 months are just about over, so we will see.

The whole reason for the so called surge was so the puppet elected government could get on with making reparations. To show just how serious they were, nothing at all got done. They don't have electric, water, or sewage in most of the country, and the government is a joke (much like ours)

I wouldn't be all that happy with the results of the surge.

Dingfod: The only failure of the newly elected Congress was not enough Democrats were among the newly elected to give them enough of a majority to override vetos or obstructionist legislative maneuvers like filibusters or cloture. If the Dems gain enough seats in this year's elections it won't matter if Huckleberry is elected to the Presidency

Correct. I really hope that the projected wins in the house and senate happen. The Dems will indeed have gained enough seats that Lieberman will be fully irrelevant.

BTW, I heard that Obama got more votes the all of the republicans put together. Even Huckleberry

Cockburn?

The surge will remain a failure as long as the Iraqi political process does not make progress.

The Surge has lowered violence, which is great for Iraqis and American soldiers. However, stopping violence is only one (very difficult) portion of the purpose of the surge. Pretending that stopping the violence was the goal is massively disingenuous to those soldiers spending 18 months deployed for it.

The Surge was intended to lower the barriers to political progress by the Iraqis so the government and Iraqi military could begin to take over the missions which Americans are currently fulfilling.

FlashHarry: 1) the "surge" has actually seemed to stem violence - at least in baghdad.

Stemming violence is pretty pointless if it doesn't lead to a political resolution of the internal conflicts. NOTHING will end the violence there other than that. It has failed to achieve the goals laid out by Bush at the beginning, so it has failed, as expected.

The democratic party is finally returning civility and proper order to the Congress. They don't have enough of a majority to override vetoes though, deal with it. 49 Democratic senators isn't enough to do against a president that'll veto anything they send forward.

Look, Republicans can't govern. We know this. They are philosophically and fundamentally opposed to the very idea of nature. It's like having a vegan work at McDonald's. With the GOP in power they want only to strangle government or make sure it works for no one but themselves. But they are damn good obstructionists. That's what they do best. They got into office in the 90s by being obstructionists not by some bullshiat Contract with America that nobody gave a fark about.

EdMon: I think this (and next) deadlocked year are GREATLY preferred to the running amok politics that lasted from 01-06.

True dat!

GoodyearPimp: It's a synonym for embiggen.

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

Well played sir, well played.

regarding "the surge has worked." sure, the "surge" has a flashy whizz-bang name, and an additional troop deployment, which keep the militarists and blind patriots happy. yet, if you look closer it seems to me have been largely remedial work. in many ways it has been closer to an anti-surge; an admission that the tactics were wrong and it was better to not do some things (indeed, to try to undo them) than to keep on doing them. unfortunately, it has only addressed some of the problems.

as one example of how i would suggest it has really been an anti-push, recall how the kirkuk referendum that was supposed to have happened last month has been put back to late this year

I loved in 2007 when the Congressional Democrats ended the war in Iraq just like we elected them to. That was the best part.

I'm not sure how anyone could even bring up the troop surge and 'failure' in the same sentence with a straight face.