Offer Bush the funding, but ONLY as a repeal of his Leave-No-Millionaire-Behind income and estate tax cuts.
Make HIM "decide" between two of HIS biggest wishes.
Until he puts away the grandkids' charge card--not one dime. (And we can ask, "Why won't he support the troops?")
Posted by bartcopfan at March 23, 2007 11:36 AMyh, th Snt wll kll bt vrythng nd Bsh wll kll nythng ls tht gts thrgh. Ths s why w ndd sm tgh ldrshp t th Hs lvl t cmmnc mpchmnt nd trl. f crs, vryn wh vtd fr ths crp pllg s jst s glty s lttl Bsh, s, stts q rls.
f th bv s crrct, thnk ll cn fnlly s jst hw r prsnt rwlln gvrnmnt ws nstlld dcds g, n trms f cndtnng th msss. By slctng wk nd dd ldrshp, th crps strk t r pltcl frdms, whl rplcng ths lst pltcl nd cnmc frdms wth dvrc, dltry,nfntcd (ths prmts rrspnsbl sxl ctvty), hmsxls, vr-sxd TV/flm, prn, tc. Wht mn s tht thy NCRS sxl ctvty, whl dcrsng pltcl/cnmc frdm. Th ld bt nd swtch, dn n mssv scl.
Fllw th mny, nd y'll nswr th qstn s t wh prfts.
[Editor: ignore=off]Nancy Pelosi showed some savvy leadership here, making sure she had enough votes to pass the bill, knowing Bush would veto it, keeping the failed occupation directly on the GOP's shoulders. She also got enough strong votes to allow dems in more liberal districts to vote against and register their protest of the weaker bill on the record. Nicely done!
Posted by iamcoyote at March 23, 2007 12:06 PMThe best, if not the only way, to end this misbegotten war, is to cut off the funding and the Democrats have it within their means to do so. The Democrats have claimed that they have only a "razor thin majority" in which to act but this explanation is a chimera. It takes only one senator to filibuster against the war and only 41 abstentions to sustain the filibuster. If that were to actually happen, therre is nothing that Bush could do because a bill that has been filibustered simply expires, leaving Bush nothing to veto.
The Republicans filibustered twice in order to prevent any kind of fight to be used against the "surge" from coming up for a vote. It is long past the point that the [alleged] anti-war Democrats do the same in order to cut off the funding for this most unnecessary war.
Posted by Erroll at March 23, 2007 12:10 PMThe Democrats need to continue to demand, emphatically, that Bush end the occupation of Iraq. If Bush refuses, emphatically, to do so, that is fine with me.
What I am concerned about is the Democrats' lack of the appropriate tactics. I watched Bush on MSNBC today. He called Democrats traitors and losers who are trying to kill our troops.
The Democratic response?
What is it? Does it include an attack on Bush for his smearing? He should be ridiculed and attacked for it.
Who are the people taking the Democratic response to the public? Where are they?
So far, I haven't seen anything that shows that the Democrats understand how to win. It appears that they are still treating Bush as if he is the respected and admired commander-in-chief that his cultists imagine him to be. He is a contemptible punk, a serial liar and a world-class fuck-up. The Democrats need to call him that, in acceptable language of course, and treat him like that.
Posted by James E. Powell at March 23, 2007 12:13 PMThis bill is a Dem capitulation--it gives the president more war money than he asked for and does not require a troop withdrawal. Still, he has so much power (thank you, Dems) that he'll veto it and get even more. Let's hear it for more war!
Here's why Military Families Speak Out urged a "no" vote:
Claim: Troop Readiness Requirements: no funds can be appropriated to deploy any unit of the Armed Forces to Iraq unless the unit is fully trained, equipped and "mission capable"
Reality: The bill includes a provision that allows the President to waive troop readiness requirements
Claim: No Extended Deployments: no funds can be appropriated for extending the deployment of the Army, National Guard or Reserves beyond a 365-day deployment, or a Marine unit beyond a 210-day deployment
Reality: The bill includes a provision that allows the President to waive the prohibition on extended deployments
Claim: Rest Period Between Deployments: no funds can be appropriated for deploying any Army unit that has been deployed within the previous 365 consecutive days, or an Marine unit that has been deployed within the previous 210 consecutive days
Reality: The bill includes a provision that allows the President to waive the specified rest periods between deployments
Claim: Requirements for Iraqi Government Progress: if the Iraqi government isn't making substantial progress by October 1, 2007 and again by March 1,2008 in making the country secure, democratic and reducing sectarian violence, the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq within 180 days.
Reality: The bill allows the President to unilaterally certify "Iraqi Government Progress"
Claim: Date Certain for U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq: combat troops out of Iraq by August, 2008 at the latest
Reality: With three U.S troops dying each day the war continues, August, 2008 is not an acceptable deadline for withdrawal of US troops. It is not bringing our troops home now. Furthermore, the bill allows U.S. troops to remain in Iraq after the August, 2008 withdrawal date if they are "engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach" [note: the terms "limited in duration and scope" are undefined in the bill]; and/or if they are "training members of the Iraqi Security Forces". This provision could be used to keep tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq for years to come.
http://www.washblog.com/story/2007/3/15/142621/192
Oh well, the bill does include lots of pork including millions for California spinach farmers so it's not all bad.
Posted by Don Bacon at March 23, 2007 12:40 PMcomplain about the imperfect nature of this bill if you want, but it is much better than another Republican rubber stamp. The majority of the people's representatives have stood up to Bush and said NO MORE. For George W. Bush this is a hammer-blow to the head. His life is based on getting exactlly what he wants, whenever he wants it, the death and destruction caused by his whims is no consequence to him. Twice in one week the Dems have called his bluff in no uncertain terms. I like it. It's been a long time coming.
Posted by T2 at March 23, 2007 01:15 PMI think it's safe to say that the Democrats will never be a threat to the Republicans until the public gets fed up with them.
Kinda like the wife who kicks out the philandering husband until he shows contrition, and then it's welcome back home honey. Sorry, been there done that with Nixon and Reagan and Bush 41.
Then a new batch of Republican faces with the same old wine in a new bottle will show up and the public's love affair with Republicans will start all over again.
Democrats ought to face up to the fact that they will never have what the public wants and they'll always be a stand-in until the husband gets back.
And they ought to face up to the fact that as a party they just plain suck at getting things done.
If they were a sports team, they'd never win a game because no matter how bad a shape the other team is in, the Democrats can't get themselves organized.
And in the end, the final score will always say a win for the Republicans...even if it's a draw.
Face it. As many problems as Bush and Cheney have, they'll walk away scotfree in 2009 as will most of their accomplices.
Posted by Alex at March 23, 2007 01:38 PMHillary will always need Bill to explain her Iraq vote. And her positions.
FDR, Truman, and Kennedy would be ashamed of the thing that is called the Democratic Party today. Truman especially.
Posted by Alex at March 23, 2007 01:50 PMcyt, s yr pnt, nd gr n thry, bt th rlty s tht w hv mny flns n DC. mpchmnt by flns (ths tht vtd fr th rq/fghn pllgs r wr crmnls) s th nly wy t mmdtly hlt crmnl cts n tht th ftr s t nprdctbl bcs th WH gngstrs wll crt frndly sb-clmt n nywy thy cn t mntn pwr nd cntrl.
Pls knws th bv s sh cms frm gngstr fmly hrslf, nd sh's bn rnd DC pltcs lng ngh tht vn hgh fnctnng rtrdd dlt shld knw th bv by nw.
S, y sk, thn why s sh rlly dng th bv? Sh s dng wht sh ds bst: CTNG lk ldr, (tght by th TV/flms,tc.). nd tht s th prblm, w hv mch f dts wtht chrctr, r vn wrs, n th Hll.
Hv y vr btchrd chckn? Tht's Pls, rnnng rnd wth hr hd ct ff, nd wrthlss t vryn, ncldng KFC.
[Editor: ignore=off]It's as much as can be done given the incontestible fact that virtually the entire Repub party in Congress has completely abdicated its responsibility and behaves as thought they are supporting Abraham Lincoln in Iraq.
One party cannot by itself stop a military occupation pigheadedly carried out by a delusional "president".
The shit will really hit the fan when the senate doesn't include the language or if Nero plays chicken and vetoes the measure, as then the current funding will start to run out. Of course Nero will happily put our troops at risk rather than accept this well-deserved check by the Congress and accept the people's well-deserved judgment on his failed Iraq Adventure. Criminal.
As to james powell's always astute observation above, the Dems seem not to be able to defend themselves and present compelling arguments and wage rhetorical battles. It's extremely frustrating.
We are called traitors and troop killers because we pass a bill calling for (waivable!) readiness certifications and withdrawal from a failed occupation 18 months(!) from now, as though the troop planes are running out of gas on the Iraq tarmac.
60% of Americans want us out within a year. 85% of Iraqi sunnis and shia want us gone within one year. General P says Nero's escalation should run at most through early '08. This bill continues the occupation 6 months BEYOND these dates.
One of the sticking points to Iraqi "reconciliation" supposedly is absence of a US withdrawal schedule. Plus, announcing a US withdrawal date will (finally!) start holding the Iraqi neighbors' feet to the fire about how they're going to help Iraq. So this bill helps the diplomatic effort IF Nero were actually trying to get a solution accomplished.
Congress authorizes military invasions and occupations under our Constitution, and it obviously can end them, whenever it wants, whatever the Commander-in-Chief may splutter. Dems better start coming up with some better responses to the media after passing this bill or the "conservative" Repub noise machine will demonize them.
Posted by euzoius at March 23, 2007 01:52 PMlx, lwys knd lkd Trmn's styl, yt, wht w hv tdy cn b trcd t hm. Hw? t ws Trmn tht mmdtly rcgnzd srl's rght f stthd by cnqst n 1948, lngsd th K, (snd fmlr?).
f Trmn rfsd t rcgnz th rght f stts t xst by cnqst, w wld nt b n ths prtclr mss tdy, sspct.
[Editor: ignore=off]euzoius, the noise machine will demonize dems no matter what, at least all of the headlines will proclaim the Dems passed a bill with a deadline and Bush vetoed it. That's just about all we can hope for, because Bush has declared if the dems cut funding, he still has enough money to keep the occupation going - he is going to do what he wants no matter what congress does! He's proven it. Facing reality doesn't mean abandoning the troops. If I have a choice between nothing and not perfect, I'm going to take not perfect, knowing that perfect won't pass at all and you'll still end up with nothing.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 23, 2007 02:08 PMTake your pick of the endless criminal acts from the Bush administration.
They'll walk on all of them.
There are two laws of the land in the US. One for the Republicans and one for everyone else. This is government by corporations.
From 2000, the Democrats have not been able to tell the public what their message is. Not in simple terms so it's understandable. And because the Dems themselves don't know what their message is. Yeah. Bring on 2008. There's still a year for the Republicans to get their act together. So don't think the Dems have this wrapped up.
Dems don't have any core beliefs. That's why they're indefensible. Bill Clinton's beliefs are not mine.
And they haven't been able to take advantage of all of the gimmees that the Bush administration has served up on a platter.
Why did the public finally get fed up with the Republicans this time? Because of execution problems on the Iraq strategy. If they were winning, Dems would be in the Smithsonian.
Posted by Alex at March 23, 2007 02:10 PMI agree, coyote, Pelosi clearly got what she could get (and had to fight hard for that!) and it's far, far better than just another $100 billion no-strings-attached Repub "Iraq special". One can't change the laws of physics, even the Speaker of the House.
What amazes me is the cohesiveness of the criminal Repubs in this situation.
Posted by euzoius at March 23, 2007 02:18 PMScout, I agree with that. But Truman had a core set of beliefs. Much like Goldwater had in conservatism. And Truman could talk to the guy on the street. He didn't have a problem saying what he believed. Find someone like that in today's Dem party. You won't.
Truman started the US' problem with Israel with his old friend Eddie Jacobsen and making it official that Israel had a right to exist.
We now know that it'd been better to send the Jews off to Africa. There's plenty of land to fight about over there. They didn't have to steal the Palestinians land.
It's a bad thing to say, but Hitler may have had a good reason for disliking the Jews so much.
Posted by Alex at March 23, 2007 02:18 PM"...far better than just another $100 billion no-strings-attached Repub "Iraq special"..."
But that's to be expected. They're war profiteers for cryin out loud. Of course they're going to give it away.
Posted by Alex at March 23, 2007 02:21 PMWhat amazes me is the cohesiveness of the criminal Repubs in this situation.
It's hard to let go of what used to be their source of power, I think; plus, they're under the impression that because the RNC paid wingnuts and tv pundits holler loudly, they have more numbers than they do. Which is fine - let 'em move even further to the right, that only helps the dems in '08.
What doesn't help the dems is whining and crying and giving up on the Dems because the war isn't over today. It's not going to be over anytime soon, even if the funds are cut today, even if Bush had a change of heart, even if the dems pull out a magic wand and wish it all away. This shit takes time. There are 6 years full of criminal activities to sift through, have hearings on, etc. It totally sucks that our soldiers are dying every day, but there are also kids dying every day from malnutrition, or lack of health care; there are people dying here every day because food regulations have been relaxed so much that every time you turn around there's an e coli outbreak. Bush and his cronies have trashed the place, and we can wait around until the Cat in the Hat shows up with his crazy cleaning machine, or we can support the dems as they slog through the mess and bureaucracy and try to get things done.
It's a bad thing to say, but Hitler may have had a good reason for disliking the Jews so much.
OMFG!
Posted by iamcoyote at March 23, 2007 02:43 PMCoyote,
I've said it a number of times before (as have others). You don't take your options (like impeachment) off the table. And it's incredibly stupid to do so unless your in someone's back pocket.
I see the Dems for what they are today; an extension of AIPAC and to a lesser degree an extension of corporate Amerika. Hence, government by corporations.
And that will always be a big part of the problem. And it's a good guess that's why impeachment is off the table.
Crooks & liars are crooks & liars regardless of what label they wear.
Posted by Alex at March 23, 2007 03:03 PMFrankly, Alex, someone who thinks Hitler had a good point doesn't really have much credibility. I guess I'm a stickler for such things, but thinking that the murder of over 6 million people is an acceptable form of "dislike" doesn't show a whole lot of clearheadedness.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 23, 2007 03:30 PMYou be a stickler all you want. The point was that the actions of some Jewish people were what prompted Hitler to despise them so much. That one's in the history books when he was in his 20s and was a struggling painter.
You can also stop reading into my statement about it's an implicit approval for murder. I never said that and it's not ok.
And Israel shouldn't pursue their strategy of wiping out Palestinians either because they're Muslims to steal their land. So you might point that out too.
Unless you can only see one side where Israel can do no wrong.
Posted by Alex at March 23, 2007 03:55 PMlx, y md sm gd pnts, nd cyts rspns rflcts tht nncnt Jws wr klld wtht trl, nd thy wr chrgd wth nthng, bcs thy dd nthng wrng.
Y wr thnkng f th ntrntnl Jws tht st-p th Blfr Dclrtn tht kpt Grmny n th hrrr f WW. Th Grmns fgrd ths t, ftr thr dft, nd Htlr sd ths fr pltcl gn: sd gncd fr pltcl gn fdng ff th wrngflly ndcd scl htrd. Th ntrntnl gys, Jws, nt nly nvr wr hld ccntbl fr th dft f Grmny (kpng th wr gng, brngng th S nt th wr thrgh Wlsn nd Brnds , n rtrn fr th rghts t nvd Plstn) bt ctlly fnncd Htlr, mzngly. Th ntrntnl gys knw wht ws gng n, yt nvr dd thng bt th byctt n Grmn gds.
Th tw wrs , nd wr cnnctd. Wlsn, PhD dd, ws t stpd t fgr t wht ws gng n; nd Wlsn knw tht Bsmrk wntd trc; bt, frm th scnd hlf f WW t WW ll th wy t th prsnt, cncrnng rq nd fghnstn, t cld b rgd tht Wlsn crtd th thrd f dth fr mllns.
Prdxclly, th ld tmrs f Wlsn's r trd thr dmnst t kp s t, bt wr rtnly lbld xnphbc nd fw thr trms.
d lk hw Trmn hndld hmslf, bt h hd hnd n tdy's dth; bt Wlsn strtd t ll. ls, f Crtr wsn't s dmb, h wld hv fgrd t tht by mkng 'pc' btwn gypt nd srl, h ws gvng srl th grn lght t kck th crp t f bth th Plstnns nd th rb-srls.
Hstry mks stcky nd mssy wb. Th trbl s tht mst gnr t, r bs t fr slf gn.
[Editor: ignore=off]Oh I understand that. Say something slightly provocative or politically incorrect (especially involving Israel and / or Hitler) and be ready to defend yourself. Hitler's indefensible, but to understand why he hated Jews so much, one would have to read about his early years. That's partly what created the monster.
But.
I have a problem with Israel when they bomb our ships like the USS Liberty to divert attention from their slaughter of Egyptians during one of their turf wars. And our government under Johnson covers it up.
I have a problem with Israel when their policy gets the US involved in proxy wars in the Mid-East, and kills US soldiers.
I have a problem when we donate "welfare" to Israel into the billions of dollars and weapons. Stop this and maybe Israel will have to do like everyone else and learn to live with their neighbors in peace, instead of having the US watch their backs.
I have a problem when political action groups like AIPAC (a small extremist group of power elites equivalent to the neocons in the US) causes elected US representatives to steer policy one way or another, and subverts this country's democracy.
Until Truman, US Jews were treated as a suspicious group in the US and were one of the groups rounded up and deported if there was trouble. That's part of the history the US doesn't talk much about wither.
Here's an article about Winston Churchill said, which was published after his death because of the nature of what he said, albeit it was only a mild criticism.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070311/wl_uk_afp/britainjudaismhistory_070311000812
Jews 'partly responsible' for their troubles: Churchill
Sat Mar 10, 7:08 PM ET
LONDON (AFP) - The Second World War prime minister Winston Churchill argued that Jews were "partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer" in an article publicised for the first time Sunday.
Churchill made the claim in an article entitled "How The Jews Can Combat Persecution" written in 1937, three years before he started leading the country.
He outlined a new wave of anti-Semitism sweeping across Europe and the United States, which was followed by the deaths of millions of Jews in the Holocaust under the German Nazi regime.
"It would be easy to ascribe it to the wickedness of the persecutors, but that does not fit all the facts," the article read.
"It exists even in lands, like Great Britain and the United States, where Jew and Gentile are equal in the eyes of the law and where large numbers of Jews have found not only asylum, but opportunity.
"These facts must be faced in any analysis of anti-Semitism. They should be pondered especially by the Jews themselves.
"For it may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution -- that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer."
The article adds: "The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is 'different'.
"He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background. He refuses to be absorbed."
Elsewhere, Churchill praised Jews as "sober, industrious, law-abiding" and urged Britons to stand up for the race against persecution.
"There is no virtue in a tame acquiescence in evil. To protest against cruelty and wrong, and to strive to end them, is the mark of a man," he wrote.
The article was discovered by Cambridge University historian Richard Toye in the university's archive of Churchill's papers.
At the time, Churchill's secretary advised him it would be "inadvisable" to publish it and it never saw the light of day.
Churchill was voted the greatest Briton ever in a nationwide poll held by the BBC in 2002.
Posted by Alex at March 23, 2007 06:29 PM"...alex, you made some good points, and coyotes response reflects that innocent Jews were killed without trial, and they were charged with nothing, because they did nothing wrong...."
Change this to Muslim and does this sound familiar?
Posted by Alex at March 23, 2007 06:34 PMWe now know that it'd been better to send the Jews off to Africa.
If only they knew the diamonds were there! *Oy*
Posted by Seven of Six at March 23, 2007 06:44 PMAnd oil too.
Can you imagine?
Posted by Alex at March 23, 2007 06:46 PMI love it. Remember this bill is a "supplemental". Voluntary, outside the budget, requested by the WH. Veto it, and he has nothing. Bring it on.
Posted by nlacey at March 23, 2007 06:48 PM"I've said it a number of times before (as have others). You don't take your options (like impeachment) off the table."
Is there somewhere in the Constitution that says it can't be put back on the table?
Posted by Judith at March 23, 2007 06:51 PMAll Pelosi has to do is say impeachment is back on the table.
But.
That won't remove Bush. Once impeached by the Congres (simple majority), it goes to the Senate for the trial and a (2/3) vote to remove.
But it would keep Sparky busy for the remaining two years.
If he was impeached and removed, then no $400K/yr pension and allowance provided by taxpayers.
But Bush & Cheney are far worse than Nixon and this should not go unpunished.
Posted by Alex at March 23, 2007 07:00 PMIf it was up to me, I'd send Bu$h & Co off to Gitmo or one of the black sites overseas.
Posted by Alex at March 23, 2007 07:04 PM"There is no virtue in a tame acquiescence in evil. To protest against cruelty and wrong, and to strive to end them, is the mark of a man."
Alex, truer words never spoken on the subject of evil. We all, but especially our politicians, would do well to hear those words and remember them.
Posted by Judith at March 23, 2007 07:04 PMIs there somewhere in the Constitution that says it can't be put back on the table?
Not that I know of, Judith. That's why I don't get all the pearl-clutchers thinking it's the end of the world that Pelosi said it. Who says it can't be put back on the table when the time is right?
I think the passing of the bill is a victory today; Bush's public tantrums this week makes it even more so. He can whine all he wants, but if he vetoes the bill, he's the one cutting off funding. Smart move, I think. This diary has a nice rundown of the positives about this bill, if you'd like to explore the up side of things.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 23, 2007 07:16 PMThat's why I don't get all the pearl-clutchers thinking it's the end of the world that Pelosi said it.
I prefer the term bedwetters.
It captures the juvinality of it all so much better.
Posted by snark at March 23, 2007 07:46 PMI guess that this bill will now go into conference with the Senate version, which doesn't even have any phony "date certain". In the meantime, President Bush made his position clear: "These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen. Our men and women in uniform need these emergency war funds. The Secretary of Defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April the 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so would their families."
Significant disruptions for the troops and their families. No bullets for their weapons, no gas for their humvees, and no help for their families. Can't have that.
Bush knows that that two-thirds of the Dems are members of the War Party and so he's calling Pelosi's hand. Both the Repubs and and most of the Dems will be perfectly happy if the war continues unabated. After all it's the Iraqis' fault everything is such a mess, and we have to support the troops. Pelosi has always voted for funding these wars and the Dems want to run against the war in 2008.
So, what is Pelosi's fallback position? Do you think she has one? Hint: What would AIPAC do? It's not Pelosi's fault. Of the 235 Dems in the House only 71 are Progressives and the rest are warmongers. Only the troops (or the enemy) can stop these foolish wars.
"War is a racket . . . the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."--Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC, double recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor
Posted by Don Bacon at March 23, 2007 10:22 PMDon Bacon posted on March 23, 2007 at 10:22 PM:
"I guess that this bill will now go into conference with the Senate version, which doesn't even have any phony "date certain"...".
Nope, the two houses of Congress go into conference with their respective legislation. What comes out might look like neither bill which went in. It could have no restrictions. It could have maximum restrictions. It all depends on what gets negotiated in conference. It also depends on the timing.
If the Democrats in both houses have any smarts at all, that conference meeting won't start until midnight, April 15th. They'll finish making the desired adjustments and finally send it to Dubya sometime in the late afternoon. Give him the least amount of time available to decide if he's stupid enough to pull the trigger on the gun he's sucking on. The brass across the river don't give a rat's ass about the restrictions. They just want the money so they can buy fuel, ammo, and pay salaries. By late in the afternoon, they'll have melted the phone lines between the Pentagon and the White House demanding that Dubya accept something, anything. Dubya's now making threats from the distance of three weeks to D-Day. Let's see how the buffoon talks when its three minutes to midnight.
Posted by PrahaPartizan at March 23, 2007 10:38 PMAll Pelosi has to do is say impeachment is back on the table.
Precisely, Alex. But she won't. You see, George Bush's middle east nightmare agenda is very popular with AIPAC and she knows it.
Posted by Christopher at March 24, 2007 03:27 AMThe bar has to be set pretty low to consider this a "victory".
Another 1-1/2 years of occupation (at least); more requests in the interim for about $500B; 2000+ more US (military & private contractor) casualties); more Iraqi casualties; a chance for Bush to go into Iran.
Posted by Alex at March 24, 2007 04:40 AM""War is a racket . . . the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."--Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC, double recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor"
Yup.
From the Nuremburg trials:
So, in trying to answer the question, I looked a little at the history of Nazi Germany. No, it’s not that we are Nazi Germany, but you can learn lessons from everybody and from anybody’s history. In this case, I was interested in the ideas of Hermann Göring, who, you may know, was second in command to Hitler, head of the Luftwaffe. And at the end of World War II, when the Nazi leaders were put on trial in Nuremberg, Hermann Göring was in prison along with other of the leaders of the Nazi regime. And he was visited in prison by a psychologist who was given the job of interviewing the defendants at Nuremberg.
And this psychologist took notes and, in fact, a couple of years after the war, wrote a book called Nuremberg Diary, in which he recorded -- put his notes in that book, and he recorded his conversation with Hermann Göring. And he asked Göring, how come that Hitler, the Nazis were able to get the German people to go along with such absurd and ruinous policies of war and aggression?” And I happen to have those notes with me. We always say, “We happen to have these things just, you know, by chance.”
And Göring said, “Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war? But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they’re being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. It works the same way in any country.”
Posted by Alex at March 24, 2007 04:51 AMThe bar has to be set pretty low to consider this a "victory".
Again, precisely Alex.
All this let's throw a parade for Nancy Pelosi by her loyalists is pretty lame.
Does anyone in their right mind think the bill has a snowball's chance in hell of being approved by the US Senate?
Already, John McCave and Joementum have said on the record that they intend to remove the part of the bill setting a timetable for withdrawal.
I'm not quite sure just what it is we're supposed to be celebrating? Maybe Pelosi's loyalists can break it down for us?
Posted by Christopher at March 24, 2007 05:12 AMIt's not really much of a surprise that St McCain and Lieberturd have pledged to work against an actual withdrawal date, is it?
I think there's a good chance the senate is going to include the language on the Sept 08 withdrawal date and that senate Repubs aren't going to be able to hold together as well as House Repubs did.
But we'll see soon enough.
And I guess the preferred Iraq policy of the Pelosi-haters on this thread is.....impeachment? We supposedly can't get a Fall 08 troop withdrawal date through the senate, but 2/3 of the senate is ready to convict Nero on impeachment charges. um....OK.
I think I'll go with Nancy's strategy.
Posted by euzoius at March 24, 2007 08:49 AMI think I'll go with Nancy's strategy.
Yeah, euzoius, me too. Just the headlines going into the weekend were worth it. Bush is cornered and he knows it. The headlines aren't going to get any better for him for a long time. That's a good thing.
As for the Pelosi haters, let's take a look at who we have here - a dominionist who thinks women in authority are an abomination; a self-described Republican who can understand why Hitler was a monster because "some Jews" didn't like his paintings; and a self-described gay man who hates Pelosi's tailor. I'm more inclined to trust more reputable opinions than those, frankly, when it comes to assessing Democratic strategy.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 24, 2007 09:23 AMI think I'll go with Nancy's strategy.
Which is what? Sending a bill up to the senate where 60 votes will be impossible to get?
Or perhaps, a version of the bill with the fall '08 troop withdrawal part removed by McCave, Joementum and Graham?
Nancy's fan club is loyal but, blind to the political realities of a narrowly controlled Democratic senate as well as a warmongering Executive who is vowed to use his veto pen.
Posted by Christopher at March 24, 2007 10:06 AMChristopher, you seem to genuinely hate Pelosi because she is insufficiently keen on impeaching Nero, an impeachment which (right now) simply cannot result in conviction in the senate (which I think you have acknowledged). If that's a reason to mock and condemn her after three months on the job, that's your option.
But one can't really be all-hot for an admittedly impossible impeachment and tell others that they are "blind to the political realities of a narrowly controlled Democratic senate", right?
And as to the realities of getting the proposed withdrawal date through the senate, it really won't be decided by Deadenders like Joementum, St McCain and Huckleberry Graham, right? It'll be up to Blue State senators like Gordon Smith, Voinovitch, Collins, Snowe, Coleman and perhaps Grassley. Maybe even Warner.
And if McConnell's Red State Repubs want to filibuster the supplemental funding for our troops, I say, bring it on!
Posted by euzoius at March 24, 2007 10:38 AM"I'm more inclined to trust more reputable opinions than those, frankly, when it comes to assessing Democratic strategy."
What you're saying is that it's ok to let the occupation go on for another 1-1/2 to 2 years and have endless investigations so Bush can run out the clock just so the "Democrats" can gain the advantage in 2008 with another 2000 US lives.
Oscar Wilde said there are people who "know the price of everything and the value of nothing."
Keep telling us about how the Dems will clean up in 2008 while an illegal war carries on with its human cost and the damage it's doing to the US reputation abroad. That's pandering and putting the interest of party above the interest of country.
And at least mine is an honest opinion when you read everything I wrote and don't pick-and-choose which parts you want to highlight.
Posted by Alex at March 24, 2007 10:54 AM
"...a self-described Republican..."
As I said somewhere here on another thread, a very liberal Republican.
Today, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt would be considered Democrats.
Posted by Alex at March 24, 2007 11:04 AM"What you're saying is that it's ok to let the occupation go on for another 1-1/2 to 2 years and have endless investigations so Bush can run out the clock just so the "Democrats" can gain the advantage in 2008 with another 2000 US lives."?
What I'm saying is that this POS is the best that could be passed and it's still too much for W and his henchmen.
Yes, I think it works to Dems' political advantage in 2008, which makes me very happy. Yes, I'm sorry for the hundreds of thousands of American and coalition forces and innocent Iraqis who will die or be physically and/or emotionally scarred for life as a result until January 2009. That makes me terribly sad.
But when Kommander Koo-Koo Bananas is deadset on his war, it's dammed hard to pry his fingers off it, particularly with the narrow margins we have in the Congress and the compliant corporate conservative media we have. [Remember, to W, leaving = losing.]
Until, I dunno 80+ percent of the US is in favor of leaving immediately (and the polling I recall shows mid-60s within a year and a half), I'm afraid our best outcome is that W can't get any more supplimental funds w/o strings attached. I wish it was different, but it's just not. Frankly, I think he'll sign the thing with the modicum of strings, issue a "Congress: FU" signing statement to negate even those, and go on his merry way.
The good news, to me anyway, is that that should fuel a total Democratic rout in '08--complete with veto-proof majorities. (Which would also allow Even-Bigger-Majority Leader Reid to strip Joementum of his status over anything worth having status over.)
Bottom line: my take is that this is an acceptable first step--not great--but it's better than more of the same.
Posted by bartcopfan at March 26, 2007 03:54 PMiamcoyote...
"I'm more inclined to trust more reputable opinions than those, frankly, when it comes to assessing Democratic strategy."
bartcopfan...
"I wish it was different, but it's just not. Frankly, I think he'll sign the thing with the modicum of strings, issue a "Congress: FU" signing statement to negate even those, and go on his merry way."
Life is what life is, isn't it.
In 2009, Georgey & Dick will skate away much no damage to themselves much like Reagan & Bush did after Iran-Contra & the S&L scandals. Then 8 or 12 years down the road after the public has forgotten and a new Republican face comes along with the same old message, then it'll be the same as today only probably worse. People elected Reagan six years after Nixon. They elected Bush 43 eight years after Bush 41's messes.
If the Dems would have impeached Reagan & Bush then, it's a safe bet there wouldn't be Bush 43. They didn't. There is. That should tell you that America's love affair with Dems is usually short-lived as a way of getting past the Republican mess du jour, and they'll always choose a Republican even though it's not in their best interest.
I've said somewhere else on another thread here. I won't vote for one-party rule anymore regardless whether it's red or blue. If Bloomberg runs, I'll seriously consider voting for him.
The bill the Dems passed won't go anywhere. AIPAC has seen to that. So the Dems compromised and effectively sent something they knew wouldn't go anywhere. Better to take a stand and fail, rather then compromise and fail anyway.
Posted by Alex at March 27, 2007 08:35 AM