Bush invites Dems to White House, re: Iraq

[NorthSideSox72]

So, the President has graciously invited Congressional Democratic leaders to the White House to discuss Iraq, but places a caveat before the meeting that he won't be changing his stance on withdrawal. So, basically, he's invited them over to "discuss" it, which apparently to him means they can agree with him or leave.

 

Has this President ever been familiarized with the concept of compromise? What a joke this guy is. Compromise is one of the things about our political process that is good - not something to be rejected out of hand. The majority of Congress and 70% or so of this country (depending on which poll and how the question is asked) disagree with the indefinite occupation - you'd think maybe the President should at least be willing to be open to discussing the possibility.

 

I don't agree with the pork barrel B.S. in the bill either, mind you, and I am not defending that. I agree with Bush on his irritation with that aspect.

 

What's really funny, though, is the commentary from Perino in this article. Read her responses to the press' questions. This is just classic BushCo - the absolute executive.

 

I have never felt my skin crawl about a President like it does with this guy. He really doesn't get it at all. He actually thinks that as President, he is the king of all he surveys. This isn't a friggin' monarchy, Dubya.

[Soxy]

I share your response. It's really frustrating to watch our country be run like this. I kind of liked Bill Bradley's interview on the Daily Show last night--he talks about how politics have become more and more like the stuff in this article. If you get a chance to catch it, it's interesting but a bit sad.

 

But, perhaps this will make you feel better?

[Balta1701]

"This is not a negotiation".

 

I'm not sure how to react to this honestly. On the one hand...it's more of a step than Mr. Bush has been willing to take in the last 6 years. On the other hand, it's loaded with the same "support me 100% or you hate America" type nonsense that you get otherwise.

 

Fairly crafty by the White House...since they've been so obstinate, even the smallest move in the opposite direction gets them positive press.

 

How about the Dems just offer a Jan 21, 2009 deadline up and see what he says?

[StrangeSox]

We know exactly what he'll say -- "We can't cut-and-run and accept defeat etc."

[Texsox]

I applaud the man for the meeting and hold out that his statement was an opening negotiating point. He has demonstrated the courage to follow his heart in other matters that finds himself surrounded by Dems (immigration).

 

I believe his Presidency would have been better if it was more Dubya and less advisors and handlers.

[NorthSideSox72]

I applaud the man for the meeting and hold out that his statement was an opening negotiating point. He has demonstrated the courage to follow his heart in other matters that finds himself surrounded by Dems (immigration).

 

I believe his Presidency would have been better if it was more Dubya and less advisors and handlers.

You have got to be joking. LESS advisors and handlers? This administration may have been a lot better if Bush and his 2 or 3 closest allies had ever bothered to get expert advice from ANYONE. Ever. This has been a Presidency that has clearly, even proudly, stated that the President makes his decisions "from his gut", and the man actually thinks that getting input from those who might not agree is a sign of weakness.

 

Here is a challenge for anyone on this board - show me any single thing this President has done since about 1/1/03 that has been positive. Any law he's gotten passed, any executive order that ended in a positive, any well-handled international relations, anything. That's a 4 year period, and I am struggling to find even one positive thing he has done, against a whole plethora of negatives. Even Carter's 4 years were better than that.

 

And before the inevitable non-answers come out, I am not asking about what he HASN'T done, nor am I asking who might or might not have done better. I'm simply asking, what positives has he accomplished in the last 4 years?

[BigSqwert]

And before the inevitable non-answers come out, I am not asking about what he HASN'T done, nor am I asking who might or might not have done better. I'm simply asking, what positives has he accomplished in the last 4 years?

I expect to hear crickets as a response.

[Texsox]

You have got to be joking. LESS advisors and handlers? This administration may have been a lot better if Bush and his 2 or 3 closest allies had ever bothered to get expert advice from ANYONE. Ever. This has been a Presidency that has clearly, even proudly, stated that the President makes his decisions "from his gut", and the man actually thinks that getting input from those who might not agree is a sign of weakness.

 

Here is a challenge for anyone on this board - show me any single thing this President has done since about 1/1/03 that has been positive. Any law he's gotten passed, any executive order that ended in a positive, any well-handled international relations, anything. That's a 4 year period, and I am struggling to find even one positive thing he has done, against a whole plethora of negatives. Even Carter's 4 years were better than that.

 

And before the inevitable non-answers come out, I am not asking about what he HASN'T done, nor am I asking who might or might not have done better. I'm simply asking, what positives has he accomplished in the last 4 years?

 

I think those two closest allies you mention hurt him, he'd have been better on his own. He started out great and sunk from there.

 

I believe there are times in history where you just have to grab on and keep riding the storm out. He is leading in an unprecedented time and while there are not a lot to build a legacy on, I'm not certain he hasn't done as well as anyone could have.

[AbeFroman]

You have got to be joking. LESS advisors and handlers? This administration may have been a lot better if Bush and his 2 or 3 closest allies had ever bothered to get expert advice from ANYONE. Ever. This has been a Presidency that has clearly, even proudly, stated that the President makes his decisions "from his gut", and the man actually thinks that getting input from those who might not agree is a sign of weakness.

 

Here is a challenge for anyone on this board - show me any single thing this President has done since about 1/1/03 that has been positive. Any law he's gotten passed, any executive order that ended in a positive, any well-handled international relations, anything. That's a 4 year period, and I am struggling to find even one positive thing he has done, against a whole plethora of negatives. Even Carter's 4 years were better than that.

 

And before the inevitable non-answers come out, I am not asking about what he HASN'T done, nor am I asking who might or might not have done better. I'm simply asking, what positives has he accomplished in the last 4 years?

 

I've been on leave from the Filibuster for about four months now. I'm not sure if returning is a good idea... since a lot of times I just feel like we're running in circles. Nonetheless, for my return, I'll bite on your question:

 

well... he did throw a pretty decent first pitch to the MLB season in Cincinnati a couple years ago. And he's made stephen colbert a star.

 

thats pretty much all that comes to mind right now.

Edited April 10, 2007 by AbeFroman

[Jenksismyhero]

You have got to be joking. LESS advisors and handlers? This administration may have been a lot better if Bush and his 2 or 3 closest allies had ever bothered to get expert advice from ANYONE. Ever. This has been a Presidency that has clearly, even proudly, stated that the President makes his decisions "from his gut", and the man actually thinks that getting input from those who might not agree is a sign of weakness.

 

Here is a challenge for anyone on this board - show me any single thing this President has done since about 1/1/03 that has been positive. Any law he's gotten passed, any executive order that ended in a positive, any well-handled international relations, anything. That's a 4 year period, and I am struggling to find even one positive thing he has done, against a whole plethora of negatives. Even Carter's 4 years were better than that.

 

And before the inevitable non-answers come out, I am not asking about what he HASN'T done, nor am I asking who might or might not have done better. I'm simply asking, what positives has he accomplished in the last 4 years?

 

Why are we cutting it off at 03? You just discounting his first 3 years? What did Clinton do after 97?

 

Under his watch the economy has been just as good if not better than Clinton's, especially when you factor everything that's happened over his term, including 9/11, Katrina, etc.

 

That's one. What do I win?

[StrangeSox]

The President doesn't control the economy. They don't deserve nearly as much credit or blame as they get.

[NorthSideSox72]

Why are we cutting it off at 03? You just discounting his first 3 years? What did Clinton do after 97?

 

Under his watch the economy has been just as good if not better than Clinton's, especially when you factor everything that's happened over his term, including 9/11, Katrina, etc.

 

That's one. What do I win?

To answer your question, I say 03 because I think Bush did indeed do a few good things in 01-02. Not many, but a few. His presidency in total has been horrendous, but I think its amazing for a President to go through what are supposed to be the strongest years - late first term and early 2nd - and not accomplish a damn thing.

 

The "economy under his watch" is not an accomplishment, isn't anything he did, and just as it was for Clinton, has very little to do with him. Now, if you can show me something he ACTUALLY DID, signed, passed or pushed that CAUSED the economy to be so strong, then that would be an answer to my question. He did a few things that did indeed effect the economy positively in 2001 and 2002, such as the bulk direct tax refund. But that was a temporary effect.

 

So, I am still looking for an answer to my question. What has BUSH DONE or ACCOMPLISHED since 2003 that is a positive?

[Balance]

So, I am still looking for an answer to my question. What has BUSH DONE or ACCOMPLISHED since 2003 that is a positive?

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer if I were you....

[FlaSoxxJim]

So, I am still looking for an answer to my question. What has BUSH DONE or ACCOMPLISHED since 2003 that is a positive?

 

Damn, I can't believe I'm going to be the one to give it up for The Decider here. . .

 

Last year, Bush designated Northwestern Hawaiian Islands – an island chain spanning nearly 1,400 miles of the Pacific northwest of Hawaii as the largest protected marine reserve in the world. The nearly 140,000 square mile set aside protects about 7,000 species, and perhaps 25% of these are found nowhere else on Earth. NOAA chief Conrad Lautenbacher rightly called it the "single-largest act of ocean conservation in history."

 

^^^^ Good Thing Dubya Done Did.

Edited April 10, 2007 by FlaSoxxJim

[kapkomet]

 

Flaxx, what the hell have you been drinking?

 

 

NS, for as much hyperbole, etc. that I have in my posts, I have to agree with your points. He hasn't accomplished a hell of a lot.

 

This is one of those things that the "status quo" somewhat needs to be looked at.

 

In some respects, not changing or "doing anything" hasn't been a bad thing. No changes to the tax law, no changes to the war on terror (although the handling and "spinning" of Iraq is dreadfully inadequate), nothing happening on US Soil is not a bad thing... ... ...

 

Immigration is a HUGE disaster waiting to happen, his impotence on doing anything at all with social security is not a good thing, and the continuing COMMUNICATION blunders on just about every subject is terrible. Part of Dubya's problem is he can't articulate anything and comes across just like you've described him, and that's a condescending jackass. Obviously, that's a problem.

[Texsox]

 

Flaxx, what the hell have you been drinking?

 

No erl there

[NorthSideSox72]

Damn, I can't believe I'm going to be the one to give it up for The Decider here. . .

 

Last year, Bush designated Northwestern Hawaiian Islands – an island chain spanning nearly 1,400 miles of the Pacific northwest of Hawaii as the largest protected marine reserve in the world. The nearly 140,000 square mile set aside protects about 7,000 species, and perhaps 25% of these are found nowhere else on Earth. NOAA chief Conrad Lautenbacher rightly called it the "single-largest act of ocean conservation in history."

 

^^^^ Good Thing Dubya Done Did.

So noted, and agreed. Chalk one up for Dubya!

 

 

 

Flaxx, what the hell have you been drinking?

NS, for as much hyperbole, etc. that I have in my posts, I have to agree with your points. He hasn't accomplished a hell of a lot.

 

This is one of those things that the "status quo" somewhat needs to be looked at.

 

In some respects, not changing or "doing anything" hasn't been a bad thing. No changes to the tax law, no changes to the war on terror (although the handling and "spinning" of Iraq is dreadfully inadequate), nothing happening on US Soil is not a bad thing... ... ...

 

Immigration is a HUGE disaster waiting to happen, his impotence on doing anything at all with social security is not a good thing, and the continuing COMMUNICATION blunders on just about every subject is terrible. Part of Dubya's problem is he can't articulate anything and comes across just like you've described him, and that's a condescending jackass. Obviously, that's a problem.

I guess I don't see the status quo as particularly good for the country as a whole. The income gap, even on an inflation-adjusted relative basis, is growing quickly. We're mired in a fiasco of a war in Iraq. We've done very little, in the end, in the "war on terror". Same for immigration. The political system is now starkly divided and the idea of compromise has been lost. And violent crime, after declining for the last decade and a half, has started to increase. I only see two positives in the status quo - strong business growth in the economy, and a lack of terrorist acts on our own soil.

[EvilMonkey]

So, the President has graciously invited Congressional Democratic leaders to the White House to discuss Iraq, but places a caveat before the meeting that he won't be changing his stance on withdrawal. .

 

You obviously don't know how to negotiate. Bush learned this from North Korea. If he would have said something like "Come on over and let's talk, maybe we can come to some sort of middle ground", he would have been toast, because the Dems would have taken the middle ground as a STARTING POINT, and worked from there. That's how it works. He simply stated his starting point, 'I am not changing my mind', and then he can go down from there, if he feels like it. Once he starts in the middle, you can't go back.

[NorthSideSox72]

You obviously don't know how to negotiate. Bush learned this from North Korea. If he would have said something like "Come on over and let's talk, maybe we can come to some sort of middle ground", he would have been toast, because the Dems would have taken the middle ground as a STARTING POINT, and worked from there. That's how it works. He simply stated his starting point, 'I am not changing my mind', and then he can go down from there, if he feels like it. Once he starts in the middle, you can't go back.

If this President had any history at all of actually compromising on anything, I might believe that he is doing that. History, however, shows that is unlikely.

 

Wait, are you saying he learned his negotiation tactics from North Korea? Or that he learned his tactics from his own dealing with NK?

 

Anyway, what you describe is A way to negotiate, not THE way. I see you have the BushCo line down pat - if you disagree with my way of doing things, you must be wrong. Another way to see this is that if Bush actually acted with some courtesy, and talked about an open dialogue, not going in with these caveats... then maybe the Dems would be in a you-scratch-my-back sort of mood. Instead, he comes to the table with the pieces pre-set, forcing the Dems to take the hard line on the opposite side. THAT is much more like what we've seen the past few years, and we see the results.

 

I'd contend it is Dubya who (in this case) is showing his lack of ability to negotiate.

[Balta1701]

The political system is now starkly divided and the idea of compromise has been lost.

Am I the only one who thinks that the loss of the the united spirit, not only within the U.S. but within almost every country in the world, that appeared after 9/11 and was squandered on the Iraq war may well be the biggest disaster of any of these? There was so much promise there that could have been used to make the world a better place. That could have been the driver for an energy independence plan, or a new cooperation with the rest of the world, or Hell, even a mideast peace plan. Instead, we got Bush's war.

 

Oh, and I'd like to add one more noteworthy item on the matter of Bush's supposed invite.

 

Letters, from Speaker Pelosi to the White House.

 

Feb 14 (happy V-E Day)

Mr. President, it is wrong to deploy troops to the Iraqi theater until they have the up-armored Humvees, equipment, lodging, training and other support required to carry out their mission. We hope you will work with us to make sure that they do. Our troops and their families deserve nothing less.

 

March 28

Mr. President, this is the time to sit down and work together on behalf of the American people and our troops. We stand ready to work with you, but your threats to veto a bill that has not even been presented to you indicate that you may not be ready to work with us. We hope that is not the case.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Balta1701

[EvilMonkey]

I see you have the BushCo line down pat - if you disagree with my way of doing things, you must be wrong.

And where did I say that? I was just pointing out that stating upfront that he has a non-negotiable point is not a bad thnig, but could be a negotiating strategy. I seem to recall Bush 'negotiating' an education bill with Teddy Kennedy, and when Teddy got what he negotiated, he then comes out in the press and slammed Bush for not giving him enough. That's real incentive to negotiate further.

[kapkomet]

And where did I say that? I was just pointing out that stating upfront that he has a non-negotiable point is not a bad thnig, but could be a negotiating strategy. I seem to recall Bush 'negotiating' an education bill with Teddy Kennedy, and when Teddy got what he negotiated, he then comes out in the press and slammed Bush for not giving him enough. That's real incentive to negotiate further.

exactly.

 

Look, for as much as you want Bush to "negotiate" or "compromise", the Democrats don't WANT to negotiate, they want to make Bush APPEAR just like you're making him out to be.

[Texsox]

exactly.

 

Look, for as much as you want Bush to "negotiate" or "compromise", the Democrats don't WANT to negotiate, they want to make Bush APPEAR just like you're making him out to be.

 

You would have to give both sides the benefit of the doubt, or neither side.

[NorthSideSox72]

And where did I say that? I was just pointing out that stating upfront that he has a non-negotiable point is not a bad thnig, but could be a negotiating strategy. I seem to recall Bush 'negotiating' an education bill with Teddy Kennedy, and when Teddy got what he negotiated, he then comes out in the press and slammed Bush for not giving him enough. That's real incentive to negotiate further.

 

That would be right here...

 

You obviously don't know how to negotiate.

 

You seem to have mistaken your opinion on what the appropriate tactic would have been for some sort of accepted fact. They are not the same.

 

Ted Kennedy was, as all politicians do, trying to make himself look good after the conclusion of whatever work he has done. Bush does the same of course. Are you seriously saying that Bush shouldn't be willing to discuss and compromise because some whiner of a Senator once complained after a discussion that he didn't get everything he wanted? If anything, Kennedy's complaining just made Bush look "stronger" in their view of things, so I don't see the negative. To say its a reason not to negotiate is reaching for an excuse to not be bothered with the niceties of representative government.

[Jenksismyhero]

Immigration is a HUGE disaster waiting to happen, his impotence on doing anything at all with social security is not a good thing, and the continuing COMMUNICATION blunders on just about every subject is terrible. Part of Dubya's problem is he can't articulate anything and comes across just like you've described him, and that's a condescending jackass. Obviously, that's a problem.

 

 

At least with social security he proposed a plan that was new.

 

I would agree that Bush isn't the greatest president we've ever had (obviously) but I'm really tired of people blaming him for anything and everything. This does two things: a) continues to give the federal government more power than it should, real or otherwise, and B) makes the executive a stronger branch.

 

If you want to talk about a lack of work how about you look at the Congress. They were called the 'do-nothing' Congress for a reason. And as much as the Dems started out well, they pretty much stopped working as far as I can tell since. All of these issues should be started in Congress, the body that actually does the legislating. They are the ones that can't come up with a good immigration plan, they are the ones that shot down his SS idea, etc.

 

Bush deserves blame for the Iraq mess, I wholeheartedly agree. But everything else that happens in the country (cough*Katrina*cough) is not his fault.