I think he will veto it, mainly because his psychology is focused on himself and his power nut. I suspect he'll let the war fail, let the troops go hungry and suffer -- but he'll keep them there -- because he really does not give a damn about anybody but himself and his divine right to do what he wants, when he want to do it. This is a man who would let any one of us die just so he could drive home a point of ego; he will let people die for his vanity. And he will blame everyone but himself for the disaster. But people will know he did it. IMPEACH. The end is neigh for Booshie. He has seen the rocks upon which he will wreck, but he's literally too stupid to change course. Impeach. He has the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands -- and he has no conscience about it. That's why he'll veto the bill -- because his hubris drives him and he doesn't give a damn about anyone else. Wait for the senate to give him his guest worker program but attach it to an Iraq-withdrawl time line. His head will explode. IMPEACH!!!
Posted by have skunk at March 24, 2007 07:56 AMPresident Bush won't have to veto anything--he has enough enablers in Congress to give him what he wants. The threat to US imperial forces will be sufficient to get those pesky cosmetic provisions out of the bill. Most of the Congress is not anti-war, unfortunately. After all, the recently-passed House bill gave him $30 billion more than he asked for to continue the war, and didn't put any restrictions on the war that Bush couldn't waive.
In any case it's good to hear from paradox again. It's inspiring to us, if not to Congress. If we had a real democracy we'd have more progressives in the House than the three valiant women (Lee/Woolsey/Waters) who want the war stopped immediately. For more on the progressive agenda go to pdamerica.org
Posted by Don Bacon at March 24, 2007 08:23 AMparadox,
Thanks for illustrating the poisoned pill Pelosi & Co. have served the Cheney administration and its congressional enablers. Even at my advanced age, like many Americans, I want it in the childish now and have difficulty realizing our foreign and military policies, like Rome, won't be burned in a day. It was difficult avoiding a maximalist attitude when expressing H.R.1591 voting instructions to my Blue Dog Rep in the confusing fog of House maneuvers preceeding the vote.
It's also gratifying to read your all too brief identification of the driving force behind the needless cruelty our nation's selfdestructive disaster has inflicted on Iraqis, SW Asians and others: the Pentagon/military-industrial (-congressional) complex. Long after the current crop of monstrous freaks is expelled from the peoples' White House and Congress, we'll still have to deal with domesticating their vicious corporate masters who remain empowered. This will dwarf all prior struggles.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at March 24, 2007 08:38 AMThe primacy of the military in US policy, the priority of Wall Street above Main Street, is well established in US policy, and Dems have taken the lead. Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt promised to keep the US out of foreign wars but then bowed to the lures of power and profit. Truman got us into the Korean Civil War and on his watch was passed NSC-68 which made the military the primary US foreign policy force. The Dems gave us Vietnam, the Carter Doctrine, Yugoslavia and the Iraq Liberation Act, while the Repubs helped out in places like Nicaragua, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq. Now we have the 2002 National Security Strategy which calls for Iraqi-style pre-emptive military attacks. Did the Dems rescind this onerous law in their first hundred hours? No.
"War is the health of the state"--Randolph Bourne
Posted by Don Bacon at March 24, 2007 08:58 AMGeorge Bush and his horrendous Repub enablers are showing their absolute contempt for America's people and our democracy. They simply refuse to credit the results of a national election.
The Dems need to start using much harsher rhetoric against the Repubs. I am inclined to think that Nero will be forced to accept the (limited) restrictions in the House bill if it can be manuevered through the senate. The Pentagon needs the money, and probably doesn't even object to the terms of the bill.
But Nero and Deadeye are a serious psychopaths, and it is difficult to predict what such mentally damaged, sick people will do when confronted. Nero would not be above vetoing the bill, placing the troops at risk, and relying on his corporate noise machine and GOP sturmtrupppen to try to force a retreat by the Dems (and the people).
Every week threatens a constitutional crisis with this regime, with no sign whatever that the Repub Party is ready to withdraw support from their dangerous psychopathic irresponsible president. We're in a very, very bad situation, one that gets worse by the day.
This is all the fault of "conservatism", the monied elites of BushAmerica and the corporate Repub Party.
Posted by euzoius at March 24, 2007 09:07 AMThe question is whether a Dem president would rescind Bushco's 2002 National Security Strategy; it's an executive pronouncement.
The absurd militarism of both parties will be our undoing, but the people are simply unwilling to listen to a different message, hence the ever deepening rut. Militarist powers simply do not reduce their arms voluntarily; they are forced to do so either by actual defeat of economic overstretch. Which will be our route?
Posted by euzoius at March 24, 2007 09:19 AMIn all certainty Bush will veto the bill. But the Democrats have a way to end the war and that is by cutting off the funding but they inexplicably refuse to do it. One would think the Senators would realize that it takes not twenty or ten or even five of them to filibuster against the funding for this most unnecessary war. It takes but one of them to emulate Jefferson Smith [played by James Stewart] in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, to do the right thing. It would then take 41 abstentions to sustain the filibuster and when that happens, Bush's supplemental funding for the Iraq War, as John Walsh has said, is dead.
This lack of political will on the part of the Democrats would seem to indicate that there is little differernce between the two parties in power, both of them seeming intent upon keeping this war going on as long as possible. All the more reason for people in this country to consider shifting their allegiance to a viable third party.
Posted by Erroll at March 24, 2007 09:27 AMeuz,
Defeat AND economic overstretch, probably. The vast US naval fleet is completely susceptible to attack submarines and guided missiles, the high-tech US ground occupation forces can't cope with aroused citizenries and the US air forces have always been over-rated as change agents. All of these forces, even though the US is not threatened by any country, require huge amounts of borrowed money to sustain them which detracts from funds needed for domestic purposes and causes inflation and lowered living standards. Our extensive foreign military sales programs are accompanied by "offsets" whereby the US, with government help, outsources industrial jobs to the purchasing countries--a net gain for corporate profits but a loss to Americans.
I am so relieved - finally - to see some coherent explicit comments about the role of militarism in U.S. culture.
This is so deeply embedded in the national mindset ("Support our troops!" no matter the circumstances and no matter what the troops are actually doing) that it is very difficult even to question it.
In the case of Iraq the result is that the primary focus is on the 3,200 Americans killed and almost no attention paid to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's killed, injured or displaced. No, make that millions.
re: militarism in US culture
Go here to see an exposition of militarism that goes way beyond anything I ever thought, but there's truth in it.
Posted by Don Bacon at March 24, 2007 09:58 AMTrying to figure out what Georgie will is akin to being logical during illogical times.
I'm in favor of disbanding the military in its current form. It's too expensive. Too slow. Too ineffective. Too "last century" (and too embarrassing when it can't win against unarmed countries like Iraq). With a standing army, the military will always be looking for more adventures to justify their existence.
As far as Bush and impeachment, Bush 41 wasn't impeached along with Reagan for their works in the Iran-Contra & S&L scandals to name a few. That's how we ended up with Bush 43 & Cheney. That's how we may see in 10-14 years, either Jebby or George P Bush as candidates (Poppy's already piping in with how great Jebby would be as president). Clinton was impeached for a blowjob. These are real crimes.
With all the problems it's caused, it begs the question of whether government at the federal level is needed. It'd probably be safer (and less expensive) if there wasn't any. When it works like it did under Clinton, no problems, but under Bush 43 it's a disaster and recipe for crooks.
Posted by Alex at March 24, 2007 10:04 AMDon Bacon
Interesting and very relevant site to a problem that is endemic to our times. You may be interested in hearing Chalmers Johnson talk about his new book Nemesis- The Last Days of the American Republic, in which he discusses, among other things, American militarism, which is on C-Span this Sunday evening at 7 pm PST.
Posted by Erroll at March 24, 2007 10:18 AMConsidering Bush's lack of maturity, his inability to simply THINK, his pure sense of self indulgence and his lifelong refusal to accept the consequences of his own actionsm I assume that he will think nothing of jeopardizing the situation in Iraq even further. He will merely assume that everyone else will adopt his fundamental faith that he is right and everyone else is wrong and aportion blame for the impasse at the feet of Congress and not his own clay ones. He doesn't think for a moment that someone outside the bubble will call his bluff, so he'll go all in.
Posted by Retired Catholic at March 24, 2007 10:27 AMThe US doesn't need a standing military--the Founding Fathers were correct. The US hasn't been invaded since 1812 and there are no current threats from any country. The US army is only used, unsuccessfully, to invade and occupy other countries for corporate profit. The vulnerable US navy sails around off foreign shores looking important and making new enemies (how would we feel?). The US air force is employed to drop big bombs on foreign cities and villages, thereby killing more innocent civilians than any military force in history--hardly anything we need. All of this waste, exclusive of wars, costs US taxpayers about two billion dollars every day of the year. Pony up!
Posted by Don Bacon at March 24, 2007 10:32 AMErroll,
Thanks very much for the suggestion but my head is clear and my heart is pure. In other words I don't own a teevee.
Well, good points by Retired Catholic and others.
If a bill with the current restrictions is vetoed by Nero jr, then we will have a full blown constitutional crisis on our hands involving funding our troops in a hot "war" zone.
It'll be as divisive, bitter and explosive a situation as can be imagined, with Fox News happily pouring gasoline on the fire, whipping "conservative apes into a foamimg at the mouth frenzy.
Good luck, BushAmerica, the shit is finally gonna hit the fan! The wages of Newt, KKKarl and their hyper-partisan, win-at-all-costs mentality.
Posted by euzoius at March 24, 2007 10:53 AMIf Bush doesn't veto the bill (and claim that the Democrats are starving the troops), he will sign it with a statement claiming that as the 'get out of Iraq' provision infringes on his authority as 'Commander in Chief', it does not apply to him.
Posted by jwrjr at March 24, 2007 12:03 PMBut Sir, if you veto the war funding bill, the war will be over...
The American people (if I may project a little) are growing more and more tired of this stupid little occupation day by day. They are also going more and more tired of all the Bush monkeyshines involving lies, smears and coverups. The Democrats seem to be scared of their own shadows, still. If some gutty person stands up and says, "BOO," the whole fascist edifice will come crashing down and Bush will just melt away, like a bad dream...
Posted by james k. sayre at March 24, 2007 12:10 PMSpeaker Pelosi has really done the country a service by getting the Timeline Legislation passed in the House. I think it is a tactical/psychological victory which advances (even if by an increment) the cause of ending the war.
My friend, Grayson Harper, recently wrote..."The Dems are dimly starting to speak out. They're not used to it. Their voices are atrophied from lack of use. The committees, the investigations into the corruption of these lying rats are also starting to work. It may be too little too late, but it's already five-hundred percent better than what we've had for six miserable years."
I am more encouraged every day when I see that, bit by bit, our battle is at last obtaining some results.
The initial indication of a small miracle occurred when Americans elected a majority of Democrats to Congress; but we seem to require yet another miracle to translate this advantage into healing our country. On the other hand, real political work is just getting underway after years of laying the groundwork for these advances. But let's at least hold onto our courage and hold onto hope in the home stretch; for as of now, we can at last see cracks forming in this administration's power structure.
What’s he going to do, trash the whole thing, horribly endangering our troops with such irresponsibility, so Congress can start all over and possibly deliver the bill he wants four months later?
Is this a trick question? Yes, that's what he's going to do.
Posted by dj moonbat at March 24, 2007 02:50 PM"Is this a trick question? Yes, that's what he's going to do."...lunar-chiroptera speaks with strait, albeit sticky tongue.
Of course the chimp will veto it, that is if it can navigate the Senate corporate minefield.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 24, 2007 03:53 PMJB at March 24, 2007 09:37 AM, yeah, it keeps me in mind of the old saying, I think it was from the Beatles days, "What if they gave a war and nobody came!" With our all-volunteer army, one would think that would be possible, but alas...
Posted by at March 24, 2007 06:32 PM