Bush inviting Democrats to meet about Iraq

[aps]

WHITE HOUSE - President Bush will invite Democrats to the White House to discuss their standoff over a war-funding bill, but he will not budge from his opposition to troop-withdrawal deadlines in Iraq, the administration said Tuesday.

Bush inviting Democrats to meet about Iraq - Politics - MSNBC.com

The headline might as well read:

Bush throws tantrum and demands that Democrats do what he wants.

George Bush is an embarrassment to the human race.

 

[disneydude]

This line from the article puts it in a nutshell:


In essence, Bush invited the Democratic leaders of Congress to come hear the stance he has offered for weeks.


There was additional info from the article that was not included in your link...namely:



Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) reacted coolly to Bush's offer.

"Congressional Democrats are willing to meet with the President at any time, but we believe that any discussion of an issue as critical as Iraq must be accomplished by conducting serious negotiations without any preconditions," they said in a joint statement.

"With his threat to veto such a plan for change in Iraq, President Bush is ignoring the clear message of the American people: We must protect our troops, hold the Iraqi government accountable, rebuild our military, provide for our veterans and bring our troops home. The president is demanding that we renew his blank check for a war without end."

Compare and contrast that with the whitehouse position:

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino announced Bush's intention to invite Democrats to talk. Her description immediately raised questions about exactly what the point was.

When a reporter said it sounded like an invitation for Democrats to agree with Bush, Perino said, "Well, hopefully so."


Who sounds more reasonable here?

I agree with you :
Bush throws tantrum and demands that Democrats do what he wants

....but after all....King George is "the decider".....

 

[tecoyah]

Likely.....Bush has a bone to throw....might even have a bit of grizzle left on it. Thing is, he seems to be running out of scraps to give these growing puppies, and eventually hes gonna get bit.

 

[Captain America]

The voice of America has spoken loudly and it said "Get Out of Iraq."

Our troops are tired of extended tours and repeat tours. Their families are going under. They, too, want to get out of Iraq.

Last week the streets were filled with thousands and thousands and thousands of Iraqi screaming for us to get out of Iraq.

Congress is screaming get out of Iraq.

The Senate agreed.

Bush does not. Heil Bush.

:allhail

President does NOT serve the people. He is telling the people to go to hell in no uncertain terms. He is a Dog of War.

Dogs of war and men of hate
With no cause, we don't discriminate
Discovery is to be disowned
Our currency is flesh and bone
Hell opened up and put on sale
Gather 'round and haggle
For hard cash, we will lie and deceive
Even our masters don't know the webs we weave

One world, it's a battleground
One world, and we will smash it down
One world ... One world

Invisible transfers, long distance calls,
Hollow laughter in marble halls
Steps have been taken, a silent uproar
Has unleashed the dogs of war
You can't stop what has begun
Signed, sealed, they deliver oblivion
We all have a dark side, to say the least
And dealing in death is the nature of the beast


The dogs of war don't negotiate
The dogs of war won't capitulate,
They will take and you will give,
And you must die so that they may live
You can knock at any door,
But wherever you go, you know they've been there before
Well winners can lose and things can get strained
But whatever you change, you know the dogs remain.
*************************Pink Floyd

 

[BWG]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid...called on Bush to "move beyond the political theater and take a seat at the table" to work out a compromise with Democrats.

"The supplemental appropriations bill we send to President Bush will provide every dollar our commanders have requested…

Speaker Pelosi and I invited him last month to sit down and work with us to develop a strategy together. We remain ready to do just that. But that will take a commitment by the President to move beyond the political theater and take a seat at the table.

First Read : The back-and-forth continues

Seems like the offer to discuss is there.

 

[disneydude]

Seems like the offer to discuss is there.

The problem is however that the willingess to negotiate is one-sided.
King George still believes that he is accountable to no one and doesn't have to negotiate with anyone.

 

[BWG]

The problem is however that the willingess to negotiate is one-sided.
King George still believes that he is accountable to no one and doesn't have to negotiate with anyone.

According to the White House they are.

White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino suggested that Bush has the upper hand because Democrats do not have votes to override his veto. And she stressed that the meeting was not a negotiation session.

When a reporter said it sounded like an invitation for Democrats to agree with Bush, Perino said, "Well, hopefully so."

Source

From a letter that Reid and Pelosi sent to the President 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.

Source

 

[AcePylut]

If Congress truly believed they had the "votes" to push foward an Iraq Surrender Act, they wouldn't have had to bribe a bunch of people with pork bills to pass their act of surrendering in a very winnable war.

If this wasn't just "political theater" by the Democrats, they'd pass two separate bills... one to fund the troops, one to forfeit the war. As it is, this bill is nothing but a pork-laden surrender document from the Democrat side of the political isle. Nothing more, nothing less.

Kudo's to Bush for not even offering up a veto of the Surrender Option as something that can be 'negotiated'. I stand with Bush 100% on this. There can be no negotiation about surrender. Disgusting for the Democrats to think Bush should "negotiate" with them about such a surrender. Disgusting for ANY US Citizen to think "Surrender" is the best option, in a very winnable war.

What's truly sad, is how many people here think that there is only one branch of government, Congress, and that whatever Congress says is the only "deciding" thing. What they seem to forget is that the check on Congress is the Veto from the President. If Congress can't overcome the veto, then that's the check on Congress.

What needs to happen, to pull all the bullcrap away from this issue and have a REAL discussion on it, is for Congress to pass a bill funding the military then pass a second bill forfeiting the war.... but not to pas one bill containing both, which required millions of pork to bribe the fencesitters to pass.

THEN, and only then, can there be a discussion about how the Democrats want to surrender in least humilitating manner, without being the cause of stabbing our troops in the back.

 

[disneydude]

What needs to happen, to pull all the bullcrap away from this issue and have a REAL discussion on it, is for Congress to pass a bill funding the military then pass a second bill forfeiting the war.... but not to pas one bill containing both, which required millions of pork to bribe the fencesitters to pass.

THEN, and only then, can there be a discussion about how the Democrats want to surrender in least humilitating manner, without being the cause of stabbing our troops in the back.

I agree with you on onehand, but not on the other.

I agree that Congress should offer up a bill without all the pork in it. They either have the votes or they don't. Pork has existed in Washington for years....and its not a new problem. But I was a little disappointed that this bill contained what it did.

However, on the otherhand. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Congress passing a bill authorizing the funding and the same bill containing conditions for either a measured success and a timetable. This whole "timetable tells the terrorists when we are leaving" is nothing more than a ridiculous administration talking point. Really...think about that argument logically. Despite GWB's intentions....we cannot stay in Iraq forever. We have accomplished what we can and now it is time for them to work out their civil war.

Similarly, yes....a veto is a check on Congress. However, it is irresponsible for a President to threaten a veto before a bill is even introduced. Congress should not respond to threats and I am gald that they had the guts to stand up to a President who believes that he alone is "the decider".


THEN, and only then, can there be a discussion

No...there will never be a discussion unless King George recognizes that just because he has gotten his way for the last 6 years, he is not above the law and is not unaccountable to the people of this country. When GWB accepts the facts that there are 3 branches of the Government and that he is not "THE DECIDER"....then and only then can there be a real and honest discussion.