The worst hostage situation possible

[knight_of_the_star]

While many are lambasting the Democrats in Congress for failing to push forward the same bill, or something similar, that Bush vetoed, there are only a handful who are taking the time to step back and consider the larger picture. This is what I see.

Imagine a police standoff where a madman with a gun is holding another police officer hostage at gunpoint and has other people in the room covering him. The police have a negotiator in front with a bullhorn trying to talk the man down, trying to make some kind of deal so that they can get him away from the hostage and the weapon. They would call in a sharpshooter, but the man won't move and is too solidly in cover and behind the hostage for the sharpshooter to get a clear shot on the madman. The other people in the building are shooting back at the police, making it harder to line up the shot. If the police were to order the man to take the shot anyway, first we would expect him to refuse to take it because he would risk killing the hostage as well, and even if he did and as predicted killed the hostage, the police department in question would be roundly lambasted across the country and around the world for such a brutal act when they could have waited longer, tried to get the man to back down.

Now lets look at the situation we had with this bill. Instead of a man with a gun, we have Bush with his veto pen, and he is holding the troops as a political hostage. Our sniper shot would be cutting off funds for the war completely, and by pushing to include the timelines and the like all we are doing is antagonizing Bush more into doing something dangerous for the troops. For our country.

I am not saying we should not try to get the troops out of this situation. What I am saying is that we cannot try to force a potentially volatile situation. Bush unfortunately has the troops as his hostage. We need to find another way, as negotiating isn't working and forcing the situation would be even worse. Even if we cut off funding, that is no guarantee that Bush will pull the troops out or even follow through, knowing him he might simply find another source to steal from for his precious war, even if that means cutting pay across the board. We have to find a way to get enough Republicans to flip that we can get past the veto. We need to get those other folks in the building to stop shooting at the police and to turn on the madman with the hostage. Then we can be sure that we can take out the madman for good.

[knight_of_the_star]

1. kick

[babydollhead]

2. we should be fighting for out troops freedom n/t

[knight_of_the_star]

3. Yes we should

But we don't have the means to get them out directly. Even if we cut off funding there is no certainty Bush will actually pull the troops out. If we cut off funds all we can be certain of is that we lose any possibility of finding ways to help the troops with better equipment and living conditions by putting them solely in Bush's hands.

[Canuckistanian]

4. Yup

The 'troops as hostage' theme has been mentioned before.

And as for the negotiations. It's never really been tried.

It's strictly 'my way or the highway' with these cretins.

[Ghost in the Machine]

5. I can go along with what you're saying.

I'll admit, I'm one of the worst ones when it comes to hollering about impeachment NOW!, but I also understand exactly what you are saying. Rational thought sometimes doesn't set in until you get to blow off some steam and get it out of your system. We're all on outrage overload here, and we all need to vent sometimes.

We can't just leave our soldiers high and dry, with nothing, trying to prove a point. No matter how long we try, the Chimperor will never accept a timeline and we're only harming the troops to keep trying and failing over and over again.

[knight_of_the_star]

6. I know Bush won't accept a timeline

But if we can get enough Republicans in the House and Senate to flip on him we can override his veto and force it through.

[rucky]

7. So you get the SWAT team to set off concussion grenades

and storm the place.

IMPEACH

[knight_of_the_star]

8. We do that someone will shoot

And lots of people will get killed in the crossfire. That and impeachment won't work without enough Republicans to convict. The point is that no matter what we do, we need to get enough Republicans on our side, just ten more which I think is doable, and we can ignore Bush's vetoes and attempted fillibusters.

[rucky]

11. Better analogy.

A chimpanzee is loose in a school with a gun, picking off people at a steady pace until someone stops him.

People were dying before, during and after the bill. It's no standoff, it's a killing spree.

[madeline_con]

9. Impeachement NOW! n/t

[knight_of_the_star]

10. You're missing the point

We want to neutralize this fucker and set him and his party up for total elimination. Going for something we know we will not win at in the end will hurt us and the country. Imagine how bad the precedent will be if a man pulls this kind of shit and doesn't get tossed out of office.