You said
“Knowing that the Bush/Regime has declared itself adamantly opposed to compromise on Iraq, our side has been quick to warn the Democrats against accepting the President’s empty invitation to talk and dissing Broder’s suggestion as naive at best and advocating unilateral capitulation by the Democrats at worst.”

Ummm. Bush/Regime is ADAMANTLY OPPOSED to compromise but nevertheless offers invitation to talk.

If you assume that his invitation is empty without accepting his invitation and actually find out for sure, I can’t see any reason not to asume that your characterisation of his postion as being ADAMANTLY OPPOSED to compromise is equally empty.

The characterizations of the President’s position on compromise came from the White House, through statements of the President that he will not yield on any withdrawal conditions, and confirmations from statements by Deputy Press Secretary Perino. They have also said that the purpose of the meetings is to convince the Democrats to accept Bush’ position, not to discuss compromise. You don’t have to believe me; just read the stories and watch the videos.

If, however, the WH is truly open to compromise, they don’t seem to be very good at conveying that message. All it would take is a phone call or a less defiant statement by Perino or any prominent WH official.

Ummm. Bush/Regime is ADAMANTLY OPPOSED to compromise but nevertheless offers invitation to talk.

If you assume that his invitation is empty without accepting his invitation and actually find out for sure, I can’t see any reason not to asume that your characterisation of his postion as being ADAMANTLY OPPOSED to compromise is equally empty.

I’m sure the Dems will ultimately compromise, as they should, but the key word is COMPROMISE, which means Bush must give some ground. He cannot just stomp his feet and insist on everything he wants. The impetus is on him to come to Congress with concessions. Afterall, he’s the one vetoing the funding and Congress is the one voting for the funding.

HERE’s THE FRICKEN COMPROMISE THEY SHOULD OFFER!

Tax increases on the Top 10% of the population, substantial tax increases on corporations and executives of such that have reaped windfall benefits from US Military Contracts. Tax oil companies.

Pay as you go for the Iraq deployment. No putting this burden into the deficit.

Fund the troops but don’t make all the sacrifice fall on the average taxpayer and their progeny while the profiteers sacrifice nothing. I would think that they have profitted enough from the taxpayers contributions.

Offer him THAT as a compromise…give him his perpetual war…but make those who are getting ever richer from it really make a sacrifice. I bet that Bush suddenly sees a timetable as not so unreasonable!

As to the War Czar issue, it’s no different than DOJ- no one who could be confirmed wants to touch that position right now with a ten foot pole. As Newt told us last week the hearings are gonna continue non-stop for the next 2 years.

Why would anyone take a pay cut to oversee that?

No, better to let Gonzo twist in the wind until he has to be let go.

I thought there was already a WAR CZAR…called the Commander-In-Chief…if Bush can’t get the Pentagon and Condy to operate together then he is out of control in his own White House.

I see this idea as merely creating someone to do the job of the President (once done by Cheney) and that Bush wants a flunky to blame for his failures. Everyone can see that this is what that UNCONSTITUTIONAL fabricated position represents. It’s a way for Bush to blame someone else, thus no one wants to do it.

The “Czar” would simply be trying to implement Bush’s policies…something that, presumably, Condy and Rummy (now Gates) were supposed to be doing all along. Are they not doing Bush’s bidding? Why are they still in their jobs if they aren’t? Or maybe THEY ARE…and its the policy that is the utter failure.

Creating this Czardos position simply adds another stage of incompetance.

“There’s the residue of the Cheney view — ‘We’re going to win, al-Qaeda’s there’ — that justifies anything we did,” he said. “And then there’s the pragmatist view — how the hell do we get out of Dodge and survive? Unfortunately, the people with the former view are still in the positions of most influence.” Sheehan said he wrote a note March 27 declining interest.

here’s the link again (WaPo)

No. 1: Ranking Republicans to meet with Bush to try to get him to back down from a veto, to “compromise” ala Broder:

April 09, 2007
Gilchrest Seeking White House Deal on Iraq

http://www.politico.com/blogs/….._Iraq.html

A diverse collection of House Republicans has formed an ad hoc group to negotiate with the White House on a compromise Iraq spending bill, Politico’s Ryan Grim reports. The group plans to hold talks with National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, who has been working behind the scenes to cement opposition among Republicans to the spending bill that would require U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq at some point.

The group includes five Republicans, diverse in geography and ideology: Reps. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, Charles Boustany of Louisiana, Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, Mac Thornberry of Texas and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland. Of the five, only Gilchrest broke with his party to support a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

Now, Gilchrest says the group will encourage the White House to compromise on negotiations with Syria and Iran and on setting a date for withdrawal from Iraq. And the group has national security bona fides that will help it be taken seriously.

Hoekstra is a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and is now its ranking Republican. Thornberry is the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee’s terrorism subcommittee. And Gilchrest is one of few decorated combat veterans in the House.

The GOP negotiating team’s argument will start with Gen. David Petraeus’ public assertion that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily but requires a comprehensive political solution. Part of that includes letting Iraq know the American commitment isn’t open-ended, Gilchrest said. [snip]

No. 2) Polls Show majority support Democrats withholding Funding if Bush Vetoes the bill:

The LA Times poll finds that if President Bush vetoes the Dems’ bill attaching a withdrawal date to troop funding, more Americans by a very slim margin want Congress to refuse to send the President another bill without withdrawal timetables than want Congress to give him the no-strings-attached bill that he’s insisting on.

Here’s the poll question as asked:

Q: If George W. Bush vetoes the legislation, do you think Congress should pass another version of the bill that provides funding for the war without any conditions for troop withdrawal, or should Congress refuse to pass any funding bill until Bush agrees to accept conditions for withdrawal?

Fund the war without conditions: 43%
Withhold funding until Bush signs: 45%
Don’t know: 12%

Oh, and relatedly, the LA Times poll also finds that 48% want Bush to sign the bill, while only 43% want him to veto it.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/el…..ce_of_veto

I know David and his family as family friends from waaaaay back. I’ve never liked David’s politics, never read his columns on a regular basis but adore both him and his wife, whom I’ve known since my early teens. It’s just. so. sad. for me to see him “this way”, past his time but seemingly oblivious. He’s been pretty ill for a couple of years now. I hate to see him go out a has-been. Breaks my heart that I agree with almost everything (xcept the most harsh assessments) I read about him these days.

Namaste.

First and foremost, we have to remember that Bush is the worst President in our history. This isn’t business as usual political compromise. It isn’t “Oh, if Bush would just be reasonable for once, things would work out.” Bush is never reasonable. That is and has been the problem for 6 long disastrous years. Compromise in Bush’s mind is you give him what he wants and he doesn’t thank you for it.

So Broder’s compromise is worthless. It’s just a way for Democrats to become further complicit in Bush’s failure in Iraq.

And it’s nothing new. The idea that benchmarks without a credible threat of American withdrawal mean nothing has been around for a while. The Iraqis know this. The Iraq Study Group knew this. Murtha way back when knew it. Everyone also knows that Bush means to stay in Iraq to the end of his Presidency and run out the clock, so benchmarks as even the inveterate Bush apologist David Broder knows mean nothing.

What Broder is proposing is a figleaf as substantial as the emperor’s new clothes. Broder in my eyes has zero credibility.