Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, will be one of about 15 lawmakers who are meeting with President Bush at the White House Tuesday morning to discuss U.S. strategy in Iraq. Tiahrt has been a reliable rubber stamp on Iraq in the past but is expressing some concern about the “surge” option expected to be proposed by Bush. “I think the surge should be Iraqi troops,” Tiahrt told the Lawrence Journal-World. “I’m tired of seeing the news about losing another young man or woman, losing an American over there.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
65 Comments
Todd has “politician hair”.
Do you think Tiarht has finally got a clue as to what voters really want? Or was this past election a little too scary for him – is that why he would never debate the Democrat opponent?
It’s probably more likely that even Tiarht is seeing that the GWB ship is sinking and is going down like the Titantic. Tiarht is going to save his own hide first.
Being “uncertain” doesn’t mean he won’t go along with it. Siding with Bush will work for him. All he has to do afterward when needed is to say, “I was uncertain to begin with…”
Sad little man.
Tankerless Todd will continue to be a rubber stamp for Bush. And now, with earmarks (pork) harder to get he will be further marginalized.
Not to mention that the WE endorsed him ’cause his seniority in the R party would help him bring the bacon home.
heheheheh
So WE… how’s that working out with the DEMOCRATS in charge?
Marginalized?
Hell, he isnt even going to be on the PAGE anymore, much less hanging out in the margins.
He’ll be “makin’ bacon” not bringing home the bacon.
Wow, what a political shift!
TeeHeartless is no longer just Bush’s “yes” man.
Now, he expresses a little bit of hesitation before he votes in lockstep with Bush Co.
Who knows?
In a couple more decades, he might think for himself . . .
Nah.
In ‘08, he’s going down.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see him taken out in his own primary.
This guy is like Dan Quayle, except dumber.
The Democratic “win” in ‘06 was a political aboration. Reality will set in when the Republicans reclaim their majority in the House and Senate.
political realist – i believe the word you are looking for is “aberration” – obviously the Republican led education system has done a lot for you… And how do you figure it’s an aberration, anyways? Maybe it’s that the Americans are finally waking up to reality and voting for the best person for the job and NOT solely along party lines (and for the record, I am not R or D, and I vote for both parties, it’s just dependent on who makes the best decisions IMO)
Political realist seems to live in fantasy land.
Republicanism is The Titanic with W. at the helm.
Get a clue, dipswitch . . .
“Tell the passengers we are stopping to pick up ice cubes … “
I have always been a avid hater of Tiahrt. When he lost his son I found myself feeling some compassion for what I believe is a uncompassionate politician.I wonder how the impact and pain he carries from the loss of his son makes him realize the loss and hurt that so many Americans are feelings over the loss of our soldiers.And hopefully, as a collective world, we will understand the hurt and pain all death causes people…not just those on our team.
I don’t think bringing his son in this is fair at all. Stick to the political issues.
It doesn’t really matter what I think one way or the other. I’m in the minority party now.
You dumb slobs elected me even though you knew the Dems were going to take the majority. So now I will have a reason why I don’t represent you. I have no power. That at least will make things easier on me than the last 12 years.
Has anyone here been watching the news? They’re talking about Bush invading Iran before he leaves office, and he just bombed Somalia- (which I don’t disagree with).
Would he REALLY be that damn stupid to start a war in Iran right now though?
Chris Matthews is talking that dems could stop funding for this, and that the dems should pass a resolution that says the president cannot use military force without their say so- but doesn’t the president have to sign that, and like hell he will.
And underfunding, lets talk about that. I want out of the war too, but I am not willing to hurt the troops more to do it.
Thank goodness. Good for you Mom for realizing what the parisan bickering over war funding will truly do, hurt the troops and nothing else.
The President has always needed to seek Congressional approval for a declaration of war. He got it in Iraq. Matthews is high if he suggests this needs to be done for what was done in Somalia today. Kind of like a football team sending the other team the game plan a week before the game. Idiot.
I think the Democrats have said they want to “fund the withdrawl” not “withdraw the funding”.
Uh, you are certainly not suggesting that by talking to democrats is like aiding the terrorists?
Yes, the military action in Somalia was warranted- no question. But we’re not talking a declaration of war, any military action like that should be ok’d through congress.
On NPR today several democratic congressmen were saying that they really could not stop Bush from escalating the war if he wanted to do that. After some puffing up, they were acknowledging their accurate limitations in reining Bush in.
We tried putting more troops in Bahgdad this past year, Iraq did not commit enough troops to hold those areas our troops claimed for them. Deja Vu, all over again. Or, should I say, Deja Vu, Deja Vu, all over again.
I read that congress would support the funding Bush’s wants, but there are strings. Stories about this funding seem to change everyday so….. Also read somewhere that some of the money that has been appropriated for Iraq is being diverted to pay for some military hardware that has nothing to do with the war and should have been appropriated in the defense bill. I want oversight.
Looked to me like Bush was using Clinton tactics of “Swattting Flies” in Somalia. Big game’s in Iraq remember? No, maybe it’s Pakistan, or Afghanistan; never mind, we need to Surge in Iraq for the Democracy longing Iraqis!
Come on Todd, give us some more “we’re fighting them there, so we don’t have to fight them here” echos.
Uh, you are certainly not suggesting that by talking to democrats is like aiding the terrorists?
I am saying sending any type of motion of military action to the floor of the United States Congress would make international news and put a mission and the troops that carry it out, such as the one in Somalia, today in danger.
The big game involves two things — Israel and the availability of oil. Please get the big picture! Russia and China can’t wait to get their hands on the oil and the power that comes with it. Iraq is simply caught in the middle. If you don’t like the war in Iraq then quit driving your gas guzzling SUV and do something about the energy crisis. I’m glad Todd gets the big picture!
Paul, I thought the war was about WMD, 9/11 and a gathering threat to the United States.
Do you mean that was not true?
Interesting catch-22 KIA wants to paint. If we oppose escalation we are terrorist-loving traitors. If we stay quiet then we supported the escalation and approved it.
Congress never voted to go to war. What they foolishly did was to entrust the decision to Bush. Then Bush made the decision to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11
God help us all when we start running the country by popular opinion polls.
Jeez, Mr. KIA, I thought it was OUR country.
Clarkie I hate just about every opinion of yours I’ve ever read, but at least they seem to be intelligent.You are way too smart to believe that we should run the country based on popular opinion polls.
However, Mr. KIA, we conducted a nationwide opinion poll on November 7, 2006 and the nation voted overwhelmingly to reduce our presence in Iraq.
I believe that the president has to consider that opinion poll.
“Reduce our presence in Iraq”
…was nowhere on the ballot.
So what was the Democratic win in November about, Nutz? First you claim that it was about the war and not the Republican/conservative positions and now you say that it was NOT about the war.
Which is it?
We the people…it’s in the bill of rights. WE get to change what we don’t like. Sometimes (not always) we DO need to go on popular opinion in matters of policy- barring religion and individual civil liberties.
Clark, this seem to be the perfect time to point out FLIP FLOPS of the right.
DA,You’re kinda like those middle school girls that read into everything. “She looked at Jimmy like she liked him and she knows that I like him so I just know that she’s mad at me and I’m really mad at her cuz she looked at Jimmy.”
It was about dissatisfaction with the lack of outcome in the war.
KSGolfnut, you are without a doubt one of the most childish and immature posters on this blog. Your pathetically lame and uncalled for insults only illustrate the lack of decency demonstrated my most of the right-wing posters here. It is noteworthy that most of the name-calling, trolling and stalking is done by those that claim right-wing superiority. Decency and morals are apparently the characteristic of the left-wing on this blog.
You claim, Nutz, that you are a highly successful business owner, father, husband and Christian, yet you behave like you are in a Junior High School locker room. I would think that someone in your “position” would show a greater connection to maturity and reality.
You make endless comments about my “illegal drug use,” yet you drink alcohol fifteen or twenty times more often than I indulge in marijuana use. You accuse me of being gay, as if that is a bad thing, as if your mindless insult has any meaning. For adults, accusing a straight man of being gay ranks in wit and intelligence with “your Momma wears Army boots.”
You seriously need to look in the mirror, Nutz. For all your bragging and posturing, but lack of contribution to any thread, you may want to rethink your participation on this blog. The blog is for adults to exchange and debate ideas – not to behave like a spoiled thirteen year old.
It is a shame when people such as you that have such a superiority complex fall from you self-made pedestal. It happens to all that commit the sin of pride and it will happen to you.
I can only hope that when it does happen to you that it doesn’t take your wife and children down with you.
Regardless of your worthlessness, they deserve better than that.
Here’s what YOU wrote last night, DA:
“Just curious, Golf Nutz, when you and Fleetwood have sex, are you the man or the woman or do you two just 69?”
“You actually seem like more of a Johnny Bench than a Tom Seaver.”
“No, Golfie, I am completely straight, but thanks for the offer. I guess you’ll have to stick with Fleetwood for now.
Besides, I wouldn’t want you to be cheating on the Fleetster”
Other than to comment on your obvious espousal of homosexuality, I made no mention otherwise.
Are you hittin’ the pipe early again?
Those comments, of course, were in response to your drug references and accusations of homosexuality.
Nice try, Nutz.
BTW – I smoke about once or twice a month when certain friends come over – hardly an “addict.”
“Are you hittin’ the pipe early again?”
No, I haven’t had a smoke in about two weeks.
Go away, Nutz.
I thought it would be impossible for any poster to be more hated than Ian Santiago, but you have surpassed him by a wide margin. Despite his racist, self-congratulatory commentary, at least he acts like he is more than thirteen years old.
Mom are you prepared for everything other than the war that you don’t believe in being run by popular opinion?Interesting poll on the social security debate we had recently:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp5es.html
The problem with privatization of SS, Mr. KIA, is that the funds to pay current SS benefits would be reduced by the amount of private accounts. So if $250 billion per year went to private accounts, tax receipts would have to make up for the shortfall.
Unfortunately, CATO and other right wing think tanks do not include that data in their poll questions.
DA,Prior to “Just curious, Golf Nutz, when you and Fleetwood have sex, are you the man or the woman or do you two just 69?”…homosexuality had not been mentioned at all. Would you like me to refresh your memory on the whole thread?
And, it was less than a week ago you noted that you were blazin’ up.
I am done arguing with a childish wannabe like you, Nutz. I won’t waste my time any further.
That’s the first good plan you’ve had, DA.
When faced with the facts – run!
golfnut knows about running from facts, don’t you?
I don’t want to get this off the topic here now too far, but look at another poll on the right of the linked page WS.
If CATO is so right wing, how do they have a poll that says the following: CBO Study: Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefit Wealthy?
The link you are referring to, Mr. KIA goes to a comment on an article from the NY Times. Further in the CATO comment, they indicate that they do not agree with the NY Times article.
I t was not an opinion poll that was quoted.
Lucy!!!Nice to see you back. You never responded to my country club dues comment from yesterday.
Did you run from those facts?
Mr. KIA, having read more of the CATO Institute’s webpage, I would have to at least partially retract my “right wing” comment. CATO is normally referred to as a conservative think tank, but they claim the mantle of libertarian.
I would question how their support of GWB coincides with their libertarian philosophies, since George is far from a classic conservative or libertarian, but labels are not always accurate.
Thanks for the link – despite my obvious left- wing position, I do try to see both sides.
Hell, I even watch Bill O’Reilly, even if it is for the laughs.
We responded for her, NutHead.
The consensus is that you’re just too dumb or poor to figure out how to deduct your dues like the actual successful people do.
*****
WSClark–You were right the first time. The CATO Institute is fire-breathing right-wing. They are funded by the Koch family, fer christmas sake . . .
They may occasionally have something negative to say about BushCo and his policies, the way The Washington Times does, but that’s because they can’t avoid all reality 24-7.
Their bona fides are pure neo-con, the worst of the worst aspects of conservativism.
KIA (killed in action?) asks why did the Cato Institute print the article “CBO Study: Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefit Wealthy?”
Because they see benefiting the wealthy as a good thing.
It’s we great populist masses who need to be controlled by our betters . . .
The Cato institute calls themselves “libertarian” – they have never known a tax on a millionaire that they have seen as fair.
I have heard that the Koch family hired away one of Cato’s top guns to run their propaganda arm, “the Flint Hills Institute for Public Policy”. I have always been amazed that Flint Hills would think that any normal person would have sympathy for their viewpoints.
Kochs = of the 50 richest people on the planet & they have to pay taxes. It is so terribly sad…
On-topic, it’s pretty telling that Tiahrt wants no part of this ’surge.’ I suspect there may be a bipartisan, veto-proof majority in the House and in the Senate for a well-composed Resolution opposing Bush’s madness. Folks have to run again; Bush doesn’t. Tiahrt’s flipping over is a sign of how little support Bush has at this point.
I think we may be witnesses to the mother of all hissy fits when Congress finally tells Bush to tell it to the hand. This war is deeply, deeply unpopular among a range of constituencies. And policies that don’t have the support of the voters shouldn’t be implemented.
George Bush is not a fucking king. Tiahrt may be late to the party, but, to his credit, at least he’s there.
The name is LUCEE – Nutzie or do you consider yourself to be above everyone and not have to follow common courtesy?
I told you about your country club dues the other day – twice! If you are not smart enough to read my response twice, then I do not feel obliged to have to repeat it again for the slow ones.
I don’t run from facts – but I noticed you have several times. I can always tell when you have no logical debate because that is when you bring out the typical ‘you’re trying to derail the topic’ line.
Lucee, Cut and run is Dave’s usual operating procedure.
Lucy,So you’re saying that I can deduct the full cost of my dues – even if the club has 90% personal use?
[staying ON topic]
It’s not use KSGolfnut they make up their own tax laws as they see fit.
I imagine Phillip Brownlee who has a PhD in accounting is laughing his butt off at all the outrageous suggestions when in comes to Tax Deductions.
According to his bio, ol’ Liberal Phil has a masters in journalism and a BA in accounting. Plus, he’s a CPA. [shrug] I come from a family of CPAs.
I see no reason to try to inflate my deductions at the risk of an audit.
Faulty memory on my part…course I blame everything on my trifocals these days. :)
Just for the record.My standard operating procedure is…..wait for it…..CUT N’ PUN !!
ba-da-boom!
Haven’t read the full thread… but I believe Bush will address us this evening. ‘Surge’ is out. Watch for the new and exciting buzzword ‘Bump’. And a bump of about 20,000 troops that will… do what exactly. You know if he could point to a plan for the troops, maybe a few people would swallow it.
Iraq is headed for (in) civil war. Let them fight it out. there is really no way to stop it.
Whoa ho. Sollie’s a cut-and-runner now!
Thanks for coming over to the side of sentient humans.
Too late for the 3000 dead Americans but better late than never . . .
If country club dues are 90% personal use – then the other 10% could be used as a business expense – provided you have the receipts (or smart enough to at least ask for a receipt).
Again, it’s LUCEE – are you too ignorant or just plain rude?
In going for more troops, Bush is picking an option that seems to have little favor beyond the White House and a handful of hawks on Capitol Hill and in think tanks who have been promoting the idea almost since the time of the invasion.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901872_pf.html
So who is running the show?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2132467.ece
I heard today that Tankerless Todd says any surge should be Iraqi troops, not American.
Jay Leno: “President Bush is expected to announce that he is now sending more troops to Iraq — despite the fact that his generals, his military analysts, members of Congress and most of the American people are against the idea. The reason he is doing it? To give Iraq a government that responds to the will of the people.”
Dear Friend,
Tonight, President Bush is expected to adopt the McCain Doctrine and announce his plan to send up to 20,000 more troops to Iraq. That is a grave mistake.
The president’s decision is wrong for Iraq and wrong for America — and it’s time for the new Congress to stop Bush from stubbornly pursuing his failed strategy in Iraq.
Congress should make it clear to the president that he will not get any money to put more of our troops in harm’s way until he provides a plan to turn responsibility of Iraq over to the Iraqi people and to ultimately leave Iraq.
Click here to sign a petition calling on Congress to block funding for Bush’s escalation of the war in Iraq.
The situation in Iraq demands a political solution — not an escalation of the war that our generals agree won’t help.
Escalating the war in Iraq sends the wrong message to the Iraqi people, to the region, and the world.
To get the Iraqis to begin to take responsibility for their country, we must show them that we are serious about leaving. And the best way to do that is by actually starting to leave — beginning by immediately withdrawing 40,000-50,000 of our troops, not escalating the war.
George Bush wants to dig a deeper hole, but we need to climb out:
Join me in calling on Congress to block funding for Bush’s escalation in Iraq.
Only when the U.S. starts leaving will the Iraqi people and other regional powers be forced to step up and engage in the search for a political solution — and bring an end to the sectarian violence.
This president has had nearly four years to get Iraq right — and at every step, he’s gotten it wrong. Tonight, he’s more wrong than ever about what America needs to do. It’s time for Congress to act. And it’s time for America to begin leaving Iraq.
Tell Congress to stop Bush’s escalation of the war.
Thank you for taking action,
John Edwards
P.S. Please forward this email on to everyone you know — Congress needs to hear from all of us that the American people are opposed to escalating the war in Iraq.
How You Can Take ActionMake sure you receive email updates from Senator Edwards. Find out how to add john@johnedwards.com to your Address Book.
Paid for by John Edwards for President 410 Market Street, Suite 400, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 (919) 636-3131. johnedwards.com. \