Actually, they've given him his money, but he's said he'll veto it.
It's kabuki in the sense that it allows the Democrats to really whittle down the issue to "are we *ever* going to leave? You wanted a 'surge.' A year and a half from now isn't enough time? Five and a half years isn't enough? 3/4 of a trillion dollars isn't enough?"
That's a position we can win with.
The Dems couldn't get anything more strongly anti-war passed, and George would veto that as well. We've got ten times as many news cycles now.
Posted by masonmcd at March 25, 2007 06:22 AM"""Although that is not fair because in reality the Democratic leadership does not want the war over"""
Hey Soccer Dad..you might want to put some explanation behind that one. One thing we Democrats are not in favor of is Limbaughesque statements with no guts to them.
Back it up.
At least masonmcd gets it. The Democrats are NOT GOING TO STOP this war. The American people are. It is Democrats job to set the political landscape for just that. And, if you take a look, you will see they are not doing to badly.
Personally I think the Democratic party is getting very close to 'buying this war' in their efforts. If so it is the Dems who will be saddled with its inevitable miserable end. It will end in failure. The aggressive course many advocate will attach that failure to the Democrats allowing the damn GOP'ers to slip by again.
our country is full of strange "values"
as far as I can tell, Christians overwhelmingly love war and death, for others
muslim's want us to leave them alone, and love war and death, for others
politicians want war and death, forever.
If the Dems wanted the war over now, they would sponsor a bill that cuts off funding for the war now. And then they would show some leadership that forced Repubs to defend why they continue to support a war that was started over lies and that is lost.
Allowing the killing to go on another 17 months (in a bill that has no chance of being enacted as is) is cynical and cowardly.
masonmcd, when you say that this is a position we can win with, what victory are you talking about? In Iraq? Or in the 2008 elections?
Posted by abi at March 25, 2007 06:55 AM"Calling Out Idiot America" by Scott Ritter
The ongoing hand-wringing in Congress by the newly empowered Democrats over what to do about the war in Iraq speaks volumes about the level of concern (or lack thereof) these “representatives of the people” have toward the men and women who honor us all by serving in the armed forces of the United States of America. The inability to reach consensus concerning the level of funding required or how to exercise effective oversight of the war, both constitutionally mandated responsibilities, is more a reflection of congressional cowardice and impotence than a byproduct of any heartfelt introspection over troop welfare and national security.
The issues that prompt the congressional collective to behave in such an egregious manner have more to do with a reflexive tendency to avoid any controversy that might disrupt the status quo ante regarding representative-constituent relations (i.e., re-election) than with any intellectual debate about doing the right thing. This sickening trend is bipartisan in nature, but of particular shame to the Democrats, who obtained their majority from an electorate that expressed dissatisfaction with the progress of the war in Iraq through their votes, demanding that something be done.
Sadly, Congress’ smoke-and-mirrors approach to the Iraq war creates the impression of much activity while generating no result. Even more sadly, the majority of Americans are falling for the act, either by continuing their past trend of political disengagement or by thinking that the gesticulation and pontification taking place in Washington, D.C., actually translate into useful work. The fact is, most Americans are ill-placed intellectually, either through genuine ignorance, a lack of curiosity or a combination of both, to judge for themselves the efficacy of congressional behavior when it comes to Iraq. Congress claims to be searching for a solution to Iraq, and many Americans simply accept that this is this case.
The fact is one cannot begin to search for a solution to a problem that has yet to be accurately defined. We speak of “surges,” “stability” and “funding” as if these terms come close to addressing the real problems faced in Iraq. There is widespread recognition among members of Congress and the American people that there is civil unrest in Iraq today, with Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence tearing that country apart, but the depth of analysis rarely goes beyond that obvious statement of fact. Americans might be able to nod their heads knowingly if one utters the words Sunni, Shiite and Kurd, but very few could take the conversation much further down the path of genuine comprehension regarding the interrelationships among these three groups. And yet we, the people, are expected to be able to hold to account those whom we elected to represent us in higher office, those making the decisions regarding the war in Iraq. How can the ignorant accomplish this task? And ignorance is not something uniquely attached to the American public. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the newly appointed chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, infamously failed a pop quiz in which journalist Jeff Stein asked him to differentiate between Sunni and Shiite. Reyes has become the poster boy for congressional stupidity, but in truth he is not alone. Very few of his colleagues could pass the test, truth be told.
The task of holding Congress to account is a daunting one, and can be accomplished only if the citizenry that forms the respective constituencies of our ignorant congressional representatives are themselves able to operate at an intellectual capacity above that of those they are holding to account. So rather than issue “pop quizzes” to our elected representatives, I’ve designed one for us, the people. If the reader can fully answer the question raised, then he or she qualifies as one capable of pointing an accusatory finger at Congress as its members dither over what to do in Iraq. If the reader fails the quiz, then there should be an honest appraisal of the reality that we are in way over our heads regarding this war, and that it is irresponsible for anyone to make sweeping judgments about the ramifications of policy courses of action yet to be agreed upon. Claiming to be able to divine a solution to a problem improperly defined is not only ignorant but dangerously delusional.
So here is the quiz: Explain the relationship between the Iraqi cities of Karbala and Baghdad as they impact the coexistence of Iraq’s Shiite and Sunni populations.
Rest of article here
"Are We Politicians or Citizens?" by Howard Zinn
As I write this, Congress is debating timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. In response to the Bush Administration’s “surge” of troops, and the Republicans’ refusal to limit our occupation, the Democrats are behaving with their customary timidity, proposing withdrawal, but only after a year, or eighteen months. And it seems they expect the anti-war movement to support them.
That was suggested in a recent message from MoveOn, which polled its members on the Democrat proposal, saying that progressives in Congress, “like many of us, don’t think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war.”
Ironically, and shockingly, the same bill appropriates $124 billion in more funds to carry the war. It’s as if, before the Civil War, abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this with an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in meekly behind them.
We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress.
We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress.
Rest of article here.
Posted by Alex at March 25, 2007 07:35 AMIt will come. Thgey have a plan. Patience
Posted by dav at March 25, 2007 07:37 AM"...Bush has his money to carry on the war as he sees fit. What happens if Bush simply does not withdraw the troops? That will place the Democrats in the position of not supporting the troops..."
Most likely he'll sign it adding a signing statement saying timelines or any other conditions don't apply.
Posted by Alex at March 25, 2007 07:44 AMI appreciate your thoughtful and salient observations about this horrendous bill and the leadership’s motives. It did not have to go down this way.
It is regrettable that the Democratic House leadership felt it necessary to throw anti-Iraq occupation progressives under the bus to satisfy their hidden agenda.
In the end, progressive Democrats were placed in an awkward situation of voting against their principles in order to protect the integrity of the House leadership who fashioned a bill that betrays the voter’s mandate to end the occupation as soon as possible. Astonishing.
Posted by fafnir at March 25, 2007 08:06 AMThe fact that so many progressives are celebrating the passage of this bill is mind boggling.
Precisely, soccerdad.
Of course, the progressives planning to throw Pelosi a parade aren't really progressives at all.
They're just dues paying members of her fan club.
Anyone with a birdbrain realizes you don't end a war by increasing funding for it.
Posted by Christopher at March 25, 2007 08:18 AMA withdrawal date of Sept 08 is not "nothing", IMO. In theory, it ends the occupation of Iraq.
"Democratic leadership does not want the [occupation] over". If the bill becomes law and is implemented by Nero, the "war" is "over" in Sept 08, at least in the sense that US troops occupy Iraq. And Nero will have been forced to withdraw the troops himself, and (in theory) continuing the Iraq occupation would not be an issue for '08 if the bill is signed and implemented.
The Dem leadership is not holding back a caucus united in the desire that the troops should be withdrawn and the war defunded and ended in 30 days, right? They are not blocking some bill requiring an immediate defunding and withdrawal as demanded by 230 Dems in order to use the "war" as a campaign tactic for 08. Is this really what you think?
We are watching the usual spectacle of the Left splintering into bitter finger-pointing over what seems a slight (though inadequate) movement towards some "progress", while the fascist Bushist movement remains solidly united behind Nero (as you probably noticed), even in the face of very adverse public opinion. This is likely why they win and will likely prevail--splinter the opposition.
And the "progressive" Dems who "held out" on this bill reportedly did win a demand to have a separate upcoming vote on a "no-attack-on-Iran" provision. We'll see if that turns out to be accurate.
Posted by euzoius at March 25, 2007 08:22 AMPelosi's bill in its present form will never get the required 60 votes it needs it the US Senate - it ain't gonna happen.
But it may pass once John McCave, Holy Joementum and 'DL' Graham eviscerate the core portion of Pelosi's bill requiring the troops to be redeployed out of Iraq by the fall of '08.
So what are we left with then? Just more funding for an illegal and immoral war.
Let the parade begin!
What euzoius said!
And please, let's continue this fight between the legislative branch and executive branch. We need to expose to the (rest of the) American people that bu$h wants a dictatorship.
It's going to be push and shove until '08'. Unless your going to quit your jobs and join the anti-bu$h movement daily instead of blogging about it, you might as well let the politicians handle it.
I thought this was a reality based community?
Posted by Seven of Six at March 25, 2007 09:05 AMToday, "Democrats" are conservative in the sense that they want things to stay the same.
On the other hand, Republicans, who have been normally seen as conservatives, who want things to change, albeit radically and regressively.
Abortion is legal, they want to change that.
Prayer is not allowed at schools, they want to change that as well.
Evolution is seen as the only accepted science everywhere in the world, but they don´t buy that.
Creationists are well organized, evolutionists are not.
The golden rule of politics is that people who want things to change organize themselves better than people who want things to stay the same.
Just because they call themselves "Democrats" doesn't mean they're progressive.
Posted by Alex at March 25, 2007 09:19 AMThank you soccerdad for helping to expose this sham.
All the talk of "date certain" and "pullout"--there is nothing in the bill passed by the House that requires the pullout of US troops eighteen months from now or any other time. The facade being built is that those thankless Iraqis now can't get along and if they don't stop killing each other then we'll remove the troops that are keeping them apart and only leave the forces necessary to combat "al Qaeda" and "terrorists", which means anyone who objects to the brutal four-year US military occupation. The situation really is that sixty percent of the Iraqis support armed attacks on the brutal US occupation forces, and our poor troops are risking their lives every day, on into the endless future, for nothing. For nothing but power and profit for the elite.
Has Pelosi or anyone with any authority in Congress taken enough interest to ask: Why is the US in Iraq? Why are these Americans dying? What is the noble cause? What will victory look like?
The US military strategy in Iraq is to support and defend a a fundamentalist Islamic government closely allied with Iran which is a Congressionally-mandated enemy of the US. This makes absolutely no sense and is not worth spending more lives and more billions of dollars. The US can never "win" a war that makes no sense.
We expect our elected representatives to be smarter than stupid, which is what they appear to be if we didn't know that they are primarily motivated by corporate campaign financing and not justice.
Many Dems in Congress say: "If we only had been given the truth about Iraq we never would have authorized the use of force." Well now they know the truth--that Bush lied and the war makes no sense--yet they still fund the war, and, moreover, are foaming at the mouth over the next war in Iran which also, as was the case with Iraq, poses no threat to the US and they know it (or should know it).
All knee-jerk Dem lovers should determine what appeals to them most, truth or theater. Choosing the latter would make them an ideal candidate for Congress.
Posted by Don Bacon at March 25, 2007 09:26 AMThis is likely why they win and will likely prevail--splinter the opposition.
What's really depressing is how quickly after the election it started, and how easy it is to do.
And please, let's continue this fight between the legislative branch and executive branch. We need to expose to the (rest of the) American people that bu$h wants a dictatorship.
Exactly, SoS. The Dems could pass all the anti-war bills they want, but if the DOJ continues to be a political arm of the kingmakers, Bush will still have the cover he needs to get his war on.
I thought this was a reality based community?
That was before it became trollish to be the voice of reason or give kudos to the Dems when they do something halfway decent. We're just "knee-jerk Dem lovers" now. Sad, isn't it?
I have no problem with people standing on principle and demanding all or nothing, as long as they face the realization that at then end of the day, they're gonna have a whole lotta nothing to go with that fistful of principle.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 25, 2007 09:35 AMaccomplishing nothing does exactly that.
There is little time left to stop an attack on Iran. Once that happens, a series of events will occur that will be unstoppable.
But people are more interested in politics and winning rather than policy and its effects. So once Iran war starts tell me again how these compromises helped in any way. Compromising ones principles for a bill that has absolutely no effect on policy is stupid and short sided.
I dont see very many people saying that the policy is wrong.
Pelosi was a force for the Iraq war and she will cheerlead us into attacking Iran.
Posted by soccerdad at March 25, 2007 10:02 AMWhy don't they just come out and say - out by Aug 2008 or 5000 more dead soldiers - whichever comes first?
We are so screwed.
Posted by No Matter at March 25, 2007 10:03 AMA true "voice of reason" would discuss the issues and not rave over the unreasonable political theater.
"Why level downward to our dullest perception always, and praise that as common sense"? --Henry David Thoreau.
Do tell me why continuing to fund this war makes sense.
Posted by Don Bacon at March 25, 2007 10:17 AMA couple of things from Will Durst.
The world of wrongevity
George Bush is as wrong as Wyoming sushi. And he seems stubbornly determined to continue to be wrong in a no brakes, in a tank, down a hill, headed for a boy scout camp before the break of dawn sort of way.
He was wrong about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. He was wrong about Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda. He was wrong when he told the UN a mobile weather van was a chemical lab on wheels. He was wrong to call an invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 part of his war on terrorism. He was wrong to squander our national goodwill on a neo-comical ideological misadventure. He was wrong about us being greeted with flowers and candy, unless by flowers and candy he meant suicide bombers and improvised explosive devices. He was wrong about how long it would take, how much it would cost, how many troops would be needed, the kind of armor required and eating a pretzel without dunking it in beer first.
Firing the Iraqi Army and allowing the looting of an ancient civilization's artifacts while protecting the Oil Ministry... ill-advised. "Mission Accomplished"? Misguided. "Bring it on"? Wrongo exponential factor 13. When Omar Bradley talked about fighting the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy, he was predicting Bush. Expecting a Democracy to spring up from soil drenched with the blood of ancient sectarian hatreds: critical goof. "The insurgency in its last throes." Erroneous. The rest of the world supporting us. Inaccurate. Creating more terrorists than he's killing. Iniquitous. Which means wicked wrong.
Counting on Iraqi President Al- Maliki to exhibit the will to succeed: delusional. "They hate us for our freedoms." Nope, sorry, that's counterfactual: they hate us for our guns and our bombs and the fact we act like our God hid our oil under their sand. Declaring anybody who disagreed with him is working for the enemy: not right. He was mistaken about Iraq falling into sectarian strife. Then denied it's a civil war and said we are actually winning: ooh, buddy, that's so, what do you call it, imprecise. The only thing he's gotten right is being born a Bush and declining to hunt with Cheney.
He was dead wrong when he okayed torture, stupid wrong spying on Americans, and just plain wrong declaring wartime gave him special powers -- unless he's been bitten by a radioactive spider and hasn't exhibited any detectable symptoms yet. He was wrong with "stay the course" and wronger when he argued he was never a big fan of "stay the course." He was disingenuous to ignore the November 7th wakeup call that could have rolled Pete Townsend right out of bed. And incorrect to reject the suggestions of the Iraq Study Group so completely you wonder if he even read them or had anybody read them to him with his chin under the covers.
But now he speaks to the nation to announce his next plan -- The New Way Forward -- which involves... sending more troops. Are you kidding me? That's how he gets out of a hole? More shovels? Some therapists maintain the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. Describing exactly what we can expect for the next two years living in the President's wild and wacky not so wonderful world of wrongevity.
******
George W Bush State of the Union 2007 Drinking Game
What you Need to Play:
4 taxpayers: One rich white guy wearing a Suit. Cuff links are nice. Two people wearing jeans, one in a blue work shirt, the other in a white shirt. One person wearing clothes rejected by the Salvation Army. (Belt and shoelaces removed.)
1 shot glass per person. Everybody brings their own from home and places it on table. Suit gets first pick for use during game. White shirt picks next, then Blue shirt. Suit takes last shot glass as well, and Rags has to beg a glass from other players when necessary, or drink out of own cupped hands.
20 buck ante for everybody, except Suit who tosses in a quarter.
1 pot of Texas chili and one bowl of guacamole, in middle of coffee table with tortilla chips nearby. Rags has to prepare and serve the chili and guacamole.
A large stash of beer. Rags gets the cheapest stuff available. Suit gets whatever import he likes. White and Blue Jeans get any domestic brand as long as it's no more expensive than Bud. Jeans pay for all the beer, the chips and the ingredients for the chili and guacamole.
Rules of the Game:
1. Whenever George W uses the phrases "defending liberty," "enormous progress" or "challenges ahead," last person to knock wood has to drink 2 shots of beer. If he actually says "there are those who envy our freedoms and seek to destroy us," everybody drinks a whole beer.
2. The first time George W mentions the tragic events of 9/11, the last person to eat one dollop of chili off a tortilla chip must drink three shots of beer. The second time George W mentions the tragic events of 9/11, the last person to eat one dollop of guacamole off a tortilla chip must drink three shots of beer. Continue to alternate. If you mischip, drink two extra shots of beer.
3. If George W mispronounces Iraqi President Al- Maliki's name, drink two shots of beer. If he even attempts to pronounce the name of Iranian President Mahmoud Amadinejad, first person to stop laughing is exempt from drinking three shots of beer.
4. If George W makes up a word like "9/11ers or "deterrencism," last person to yell out "Strategerie!" drinks two shots of beer.
5. Every time senators Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are shown in the audience, Suit drinks one shot of beer.
6. The first time George W talks about immigration, last person to finish three chips of guacamole has to drink three shots of beer.
7. If either the Vice President, Secretary of State or First Lady are caught napping, last person to make snoring noises drinks two shots of beer. If Senator Robert Byrd is shown awake, Blue and White drink two shots of beer.
8. Everybody drinks two shots of beer if President Bush mentions Scooter Libby. Three shots of beer if he mentions Jack Abramoff. Four shots of beer if he mentions Osama bin Laden.
9. Whenever George W quotes the Bible, last person to sing the first eight bars of "Amazing Grace" has to drink two shots of beer.
10. If George W smirks during a standing ovation, take turns throwing chips of chili and guacamole at TV. First person to hit Bush's head exempt from drinking three shots of beer.
11. If George W tells a folksy Texas tale with a deeper meaning about not leaving before the job is done, Suit has to drink out of beer-filled hands of Rags, who gets to dry his hands on Suit's jacket.
12. Predict the number of applause breaks. After the speech, drink number of shots of beer equal to the difference between your estimate and the real number. EXTRAS:
Anybody who can identify the person giving the Democratic Response doesn't have to watch it.
If George W uses a heartfelt story about one of our brave troops, White gets to kick everybody once. Twice if the brave troop is a woman. Rags gets to kick Suit if Bush reveals the subject of the anecdote is in the audience. Twice if the brave troop is sitting next to an astronaut.
Suit takes home the $60.25.
Leftover beer, chili and guacamole go home with Rags, after he/she is finished washing the dishes.
Posted by Alex at March 25, 2007 10:29 AMiamcoyote:
Exactly. You have to start somewhere. Its been two and a half months and we've gone from open ended comittment to a timetable. Bush can veto but he still needs the money.
Dems are still getting the hang of this. Let's see where we stand in six months.To me, they've been doing pretty good so far. Right now we're up to cut 3. There are 997 more to go go.
Posted by Daryl at March 25, 2007 10:44 AMI respectfully disagree. You're blinded by your idealism, your rightful wish to end this war and the old political triple-cross. It is completely unrealistic and impractical to expect the first Democratic Congress in close to 15 years to end the war, stop funding, cure disease, end hunger, etc. The Democrats now have the slimmest of majorities fer chrissakes. This spending bill had to pass as the Republicans punted on the last 9 such bills proposed while they were still in power. Without the passage of this bill not just the war but the Federal Government and all of its services would come to a screeching halt. As a disabled person, I can't afford a gap in my Social Security checks just because y'all insist on an all or nothing showdown.
While this bill fixes a specific date for our withdrawal from Iraq, there is nothing to prevent Congress from setting an earlier date in the not too distant future. If this bill is passed into law by the Senate, it puts lil' Georgie's back against the wall. George's promised veto not only would cut of funding of his war (and just about everything else) but also would provide the ultimate tipping point: Georgie would unequivocally, inarguably expose the depth of the contempt he has for the people he has sworn to serve.
So enough of these charges of Democrat Kabuki theater and misdirected animosity. I'll take progress where I can get it. This is progress.
AF
Malkin and her ilk have grown both fat and crafty suckling at the teat of Rove.
Posted by Anacher Forester at March 25, 2007 11:35 AMTh trmnl wknss f ths dnky cngrss, vtng thr srd cnscncs, wth dclrtn f srrndr, my wll grnt ll t wr n th Mddl st. Th lft wng dmntd r thmslvs nhrntly mmrl fr flsly ttrbtng th mllnl cnflct s slghtr fr th bnft f wstrnrs stlng rsrcs f brwn ppl. Sch mlcs l cn n n wy srv th ntrsts f pc. f ny thnks pc cn b bght wth vrldn prk lgsltn, dmnstrtd fr, r vtd nt bng v th bndnmnt f lylty, dty nd hnr, thy r jst srvnts f nctmnt twrd thr wn dstrctn.
[Editor: ignore=off]Anacher Forester, You bring up a great point, Without the passage of this bill not just the war but the Federal Government and all of its services would come to a screeching halt.
I want to see bu$h and all his madness justify this to the American people. Will he pay the troops, disabled, Veterans, and all government workers or sign? Shit, the Pentagon will be first group screaming for it's payday!
Putting the onus on bu$h is good progress!
If bu$h goes to war with Iran, he will have to declare martial law.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 25, 2007 12:07 PM
Naive (adjective)
- having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous: She's so naive she believes everything she reads. He has a very naive attitude toward politics.
Posted by Alex at March 25, 2007 12:08 PMThe corporate media has been falsely calling the Pelosi bill that provides $120 billion in "emergency" war funding, the "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act" just passed by the House a "pullout" with a "date certain".
Here's what the bill actually says: "A redeployment of U.S. troops must begin by no later than March 1, 2008, and be completed within 180 days. Following redeployment, U.S. troops remaining in Iraq may only be used for diplomatic protection, counterterrorism operations, and training of Iraqi Security Forces."
Iraq, according to President Bush, is a key element in the "war on terror". He has repeatedly stated that if the US doesn't "win" in Iraq, then the terrorists will "win" and control Iraq. In other words US troops are in Iraq for counterterrorism operations, according to President Bush, and the Congress doesn't disagree.
The Pelosi bill calls for a "redeployment", not a pullout, of troops not required for counterterrorism operations in Iraq.
So (1) the reason our troops are in Iraq is to fight terrorists and (2) under this bill the US can't keep troops in Iraq past September 1, 2008 EXCEPT to fight terrorists.
Hello, you "date certain" and "pullout" people--what part of "counterterrorism" don't you understand?
In other words Bush could have accepted this bill, which gives him thirty billion more than he asked for (thanks, Nancy) and the Iraq occupation could have proceeded unimpeded. So why didn't Bush just accept it? We know that he doesn't like broccoli, but is he against spinach too? [The bill has lots of money for pork including $25 million for California spinach farmers.] Why has the propaganda machine created a bogus "pullout versus victory" issue?
As President Bush and soccerdad said, it's all theater, which I guess is why they call it "the theater of operations". Quiet on the set! Cue the cannon fodder! Roll 'em! "There are some who, uh, feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is: Bring 'em on. We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation. “ - George W. Bush, July 2, 2003.
Nothing's changed. Control of the Congress has changed but the war party still runs the show. Two-thirds of Americans want the war stopped but less than a sixth of the Congess does (71 members of the progressive caucus). And we're supposed to give them a 'way to go, Nancy'? We're supposed to say that the Pelosi bill which continues the war with no end in sight is a good thing? We're supposed to believe that the Dem congress-critters in September 2008, two months before the presidential election, are going to threaten to withhold war funds when they won't do it now?
Tell me again why continuing to fund this war makes sense. Oh, that's right, I forgot--it's the money. Lots of money. Tons of it going to the right people, many of whom are well-paid present and future lobbyists (the latter having to wait a year after they quit Congress).
But isn't it a shame that the ones who suffer from this war are better people than the ones who prolong it.
News report: A 21-year-old Marine from northern New York has been killed in Iraq, according to family and friends. Henry W. Bogrette, from Richville, was a military policeman. His grandmother, Joan Neuman, said two Marines in dress uniforms came to her door early Friday to tell her that Bogrette had been killed Thursday in Iraq. A graduate of Hermon-DeKalb Central School, he spoke to students last fall about the realities of war, Superintendent Ann Adams said.
“He talked to the kids for a long time, and everyone really got something out of it,” Adams said. “It was brave of him to talk about those things, and everyone agreed that it’s time to think about ending this war.”
Well, not everyone has agreed, unfortunately. But we'll just let the politicians handle it and call it "reality-based."
Hey, dude, where's my country?
Posted by Don Bacon at March 25, 2007 01:36 PMWell, we're just talking past each other here.
Some see a bill which sets a withdrawal date as "one having no effect on policy". Others see a bill which sets a future withdrawal date as one which would seem to have an "effect" on policy. Others say the bill doesn't actually set a withdrawal date. Not much more to say, I guess.
I assume those who are castigating the phony, warmongering Dems understand that we who are cravenly and corruptly "covering" for them see no basis to continue the occuption, either.
But there are at best 90 votes in the House to defund the occupation and remove the troops next week, assuming that's what you think should be done as optimal policy. And around 330 votes (including all 200 Repubs) to give our boys another 100 billion for continuing their perpetual "liberating".
So the House progressives can't end the occupation, no matter how much they scream, and they can't stop the 100 billion in new funding, no matter what.
I guess the point is that any Dem who is not a progressive ready and willing to immediately defund the occupation is a Repub in Dem clothing, and should be drawn and quartered. News Flash: most of the people of this militarist country are not "progressives".
I've read through the comments above, many from people whose views I respect and learn from. I can't see what they're actually advocating the Dem leadership should do given the realities of this situation. Why don't you explain what the leadership should do if they weren't craven cowards and predict how your strategy would play out? Then we can at least compare apples to apples.
Again, demanding that Congress appove any Bushist attack on Iran is crucial. Supposedly there's going to be a vote on such a measure, we'll see whether AIPAC can derail it or the actual vote. I think it's absolutely essential to have the vote and pass such a resolution.
Posted by euzoius at March 25, 2007 01:44 PMClever reasoning, Don, although I'd note that Nero appears not to share your interpretation of the "counterterrorism" holdbacks, or he'd just sign the thing and plan to ignore it later. He must think it places some restrictions how long he can run his open-ended Iraq occupation, hence his tirade.
And let's be fair--2/3 of the public thinks we should be "out of Iraq" within A YEAR, not within a month. That's my understanding of the polling, anyway. They want out, but they seem to think there's "good reasons" to delay the "pullout", probably because the Repubs, TV News and (way too many) Dems keep telling them we can't act "hastily", unfortunately. Acting hastily "going in" was fine, of course.
Posted by euzoius at March 25, 2007 01:59 PMOf course the point is that there are not enough
Dems to change the policy because there is no fundamental difference in the parties wrt to Iraq. The argument that the Dems wwould run it better is not a difference. The progressives in giving up their principles to get along accomplish nothing except look like hypocrites.
Why haven't the Dems gone after Bush regarding the lies that led to war? Answer they knew they were lies and didn't care.
Once the war on Iran starts the progressives are toast anyway so why not make a stand and show up the war party for what they are.
But to many being in charge is all that is important not the slaughter of millions of people.
Posted by soccerdad at March 25, 2007 02:14 PMeuz,
There's nothing "clever" about my reasoning. The Pelosi bill allows US troops to stay in Iraq for counter-terrorism operations. Everyone agrees that's why they're there anyhow so this bill, in that regard, doesn't change anything. What's clever about that? Why is that so difficult to understand?
Then why doesn't Bush accept it? Because it's great theater, which is soccerdad's point. I can't get inside the Rovian mind, I'm no political strategist, I don't know why Bush does things--and since when did that become important?
Posted by Don Bacon at March 25, 2007 02:43 PMeuzoius,
If the Dems had given any honest thought to this, they could have came up with another way (in all honesty, there was nothing from the Dem camp about any alternatives). But rather than do that, they've continued the same failed policy of Bush and the Republicans.
One approach (of at least a few) would have been to withdraw troops in the next month or two or as soon as possible. And then get the UN Security Council involved to get other nations' to provide troops to start closing this adventure down.
This accomplishes two things right off. First, it reduces the US presence there, which is what's making things worse. Remember, Osama Bin Laden hates the Americans because they're on Muslim grounds. And the US presence is like putting gasoline on the fire because the Iraqis hate the US more each passing day.
Second, it stops the ($$$$) bleeding since the US is paying for the entire cost of this adventure now. Most nations in the UN would pitch in under the UN's umbrella, NOT under the US' umbrella.
But the Dems went ahead with more funding and a fake withdrawal attached to it that they can't enforce. And by the time they figure this out, it will be well into 2008 and the election campaign. And nothing will have changed for the better.
Posted by Alex at March 25, 2007 02:44 PMIt's not enough that the US has totally destroyed Iraq and killed & injured upwards of 1 million Iraqis.
It has to continue to rape and pillage Iraq.
The Dems have done nothing with the current strategy to change this.
How do you pay for destroying an entire country and its people and culture?
sc, sm vry lcd thnkng. Ths s why th nly vbl wy t stp lttl Bsh t t hld hm ccntbl, nd th Hll ccntbl s wll.
n prfct wrld, ths wld mn mpchng nd cnvctng nd hngng Bsh, nd thn try nd cnvct ch nd vry Sntr nd Cngrssmn tht spprtd mprl ctn.
nstd, w cntn t d srl's bddng, bt ndr cvr f hvng th whrmngrs n th Hll PPR t hv dsr t stp Bsh. Pr crp dcptn, nd nthng mr.
[Editor: ignore=off]The US and its citizens now have someone in the same criminal league as Hitler, Idi-Amin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot & the Khmer Rouge, and other mass murderers.
Might as well call Georgie what he is ... Bush the Butcher.
The Democrats provided little to no leadership on this. They enabled it.
And yes, I recognize the Republicans before were worse, but so far it's been underwhelming because of expectations set last year.
Posted by Alex at March 25, 2007 04:54 PMYou're becoming tiresome, soccerdad.
The bill that passed the House, which you say does nothing, got through with only four votes to spare in a 435-member house. It will certainly not survive in the Senate.
The value of the bill is that, for the first time, one of two houses of Congress has denied the White House the legitimacy of its plans. That's its only value, but it's not inconsiderable.
The bill that you want (defunding the war and bringing the troops home) cannot be passed in the current environment. Get over it.
Posted by blaneyboy at March 25, 2007 06:52 PMThis bill was baby steps, but the Democrats in Congress are still relative infants at leadership. I don't think Patrick Murphy(D-PA) is supporting the war.
Posted by Jim DeRosa at March 25, 2007 07:06 PMblaneyboy
you're full of crap,
the point has been that there is no support for stopping the war. And no i will not get over the fact that our country is slaughtering millions for oil. So go stick your nonsense where the sun dont shine. Unless of course you have something of substance to say. Didn't think so.
Posted by soccerdad at March 25, 2007 07:25 PMThe Democrats in Congress have been in full campaign mode since they took office. None of them seem to be serious about the real issues that face the country. Those are the coming Social Security crisis, the Medicare crisis, the alternative minimum tax crisis, and the expiration of the tax cuts.
All of which are way more important than whatever they're talking about now.
Posted by muckdog at March 25, 2007 08:42 PMI still maintain that the successful passage of this Timeline Legislation has accomplished something. It throws responsibility and accountability into the laps of those in the Senate. Senators will now have to hold the steaming turd that is this war in their naked hands. Senators will have to explain why they can't support a reasonable request to rest troops before returning them to duty, why they can't place some obligations on the Iraqi government to meet political benchmarks, or why American troops should continue to occupy Iraq beyond 2008. This criminally irresponsible Bush administration must not, under any circumstances, be handed the sort of supplemental funding bill it demands.
Speaker Pelosi had to fight, to twist arms, to bribe and finagle, to buttonhole blue-dog democrats and also many (like us) who are most passionately committed to ending the war as soon as possible. Something of value has been accomplished by securing this narrow, and hard won victory. I wish that the most idealist and passionate among us could ease up a little on the doomsday scenarios. We won the damn election.
This is not a Mr. Smith Goes To Washington; we cannot expect our struggle to be won by some newfangled Everyman rising as the nation's savior. Presidential power, standing alone, has never been more mistrusted than it is at this moment. The republican facade, with its phony wars and looting sprees and authoritarian lawlessness, is beginning to crumble. And this is a moment of danger (and opportunity) such as the Founders of this country foresaw. Here and now the people and their representatives in Congress are called upon curb the over-reaching usurpations of Bush and Cheney, and to be seen doing it in the most public and courageous way possible.
This is a step by step process; and for the life of me I can't understand rhetoric that seems to stampede in panic toward the threshing floor of Armageddon. The President has 28 percent approval. A host of investigations are moving forward. The Attorney General is disgraced and is seen now as having lied to Congress. This administration is quite likely to have its ass handed to it in a hat. This is an incremental process of collective action; and from where I sit there seems to be a better than even chance that this war and occpation can be brought to an end.
Posted by Copeland at March 25, 2007 08:48 PMWhat a nice thread. Planted in the middle of this legislation is a bit about giving foreign ownership of Iraq'a oil for years. I thought the Republicans were oil happy in Iraq. Now it seems Democrats are the oil happy crowd. They want those oil reserves, they want control over them. 'ALGore be damned, we want the oil.' What a change of positions. How does this oil grab by the Democrats jive with the climate change crowd...very curious? And how funny is this, Rep. Denis Kosinick(sp) voting with the GOP and not being called a Lieberman. Maxine Waters too!
Just amusing, and what of the '6 for 06' items passed in the first 50 hours of House work? Nowhere now, not being talked about anymore. Important enough to be the first pieces of work by the new majority in the House, once passed...out of mind...we did that, done, next piece of business. Nothing was accomplished, peoples wages haven't been upgraded. Stem cell research is funded at the same levels with the same restrictions. Student loans are still as expensive. What's been accomplished? Not much of anything...nothing even to get vetoed by the president. The continuing saga of the do nothing Congress just under new management. The people's business just isn't being done. But you're in control, that's what's important.
What spineless leadership you have now...Speaker Pelosi has antiwar protesters removed from outside her home just like Bush did in Crawford.
We've made so much progress...the turtles have just passed us.
Posted by peter at March 25, 2007 09:53 PMGood to know that the nonexistant and make believe ss, mc, amt (maybe this one is a problem for the upper middle class, but it's eminantely fixable and it's certainly not a crisis, just means people have to pay more taxes who can actually afford to pay more without selling off their house and body parts) faux crisis and the end of the rich's tax cuts are the biggest issues facing America today.
Hey Muck, crawl back under your rock will ya?!
I'm sorry, but I can't agree at all to this disparagement of the Democrats, certainly not at this level. War mongering Dems? Look, you all are overlooking the underlying force behind all of this kabuki, the fact that the public, polls at 30% notwithstanding, don't yet grasp the fundamental extremism and greed of the Administration. And that's reflected in the fractures within the Democratic Party.
So what this bill does is force more sunlight onto the operations of the Bush White House. Just like the US Attorney purges do, it exposes the basic un-American nature of the Bush party faction.
Katrina started it, but blame was passed off to incompetence and poor black folks. Valerie Plame was this confused battle of nuance and intelligence and rivalry and leaks and lord knows what else, tied into some line in a State of the Union speech that most people don't really listen to, and became a battle of inside politics.
I'm sorry, the Democrats aren't going to own this war, unless they jump up and claim it for themselves, and it's pretty clear that isn't on the dance card. Somebody upthread said they should withdraw troops in the next month or two or as soon as possible. And then get the UN Security Council involved to get other nations' to provide troops to start closing this adventure down.
How you going to do that?
This bill, and lord knows what's going to come out of committee, if, and that's a big if, it gets passed in the Senate, oh, but wait, THEY HAVE TO PASS SOMETHING in the Senate don't they or else the occupation gets defunded altogether, and in committee the Democrats control the show, so whatever gets done and goes to Bush forces him to either sign it, and follow, violate, or signing statement it, and thus own it, or he vetoes it, and the occupation gets defunded until the Congress goes through this whole process again, only this time it'll be worse for Bush, and the Public will know it.
Look, the key is to get this occupation ended, but it isn't going to happen because the Congress tells Bush he's got 30 days to get out, no way no how. And that's because the Public, while they don't like the war, aren't as clear as to the total lack of adherence to the laws of this country practiced by the Bush White House. The Bush paradigm has nothing to do with governance and the laws of this nation, and everything to do with Muckdogs precious Free Market laws. But people are getting there.
Posted by Duckman GR at March 25, 2007 10:37 PM"This bill was baby steps, but the Democrats in Congress are still relative infants at leadership."
Wow. On-the-job training. After 12 years in the minority. You'd think they'd at least learned something after being kicked around by the other party that long. Guess not. Sorry, but I don't quite buy that argument.
The Dems lack cohesiveness. That in itself will be their biggest obstacle to any longterm success or majority. That's their weakness. And the Republican minority's strength, to get organized.
In the end "blue dog" Democrats, Dixiecrats, or whatever you want to call em, will be their undoing because they can't speak with one voice.
Duck, why do you think the US is going it alone in Iraq? The rest of the world doesn't want to be associated with the US and its self-made mess.
Bush insists on going it alone. The Democrats have bought into that by virtue of the bill they passed. They presented no alternatives. Just a fake withdrawal date which can't be enforced.
The UN is as relevant as countries want to make it, or not. But at this point, the Dems have followed Georgie's path where the US continues to go it alone.
If Bush goes into Iran, then big business will push Dems to impeach Bush & Cheney. Quickly. Why? Because oil will go up to over $100/barrel and gas will go up to $5-6/gal in the US. Then it impacts their bottom lines.
Government by corporations will at least one benefit.
Posted by Alex at March 26, 2007 04:49 AMMeanwhile, five soldiers were killed yesterday.
Posted by Judith at March 26, 2007 05:02 AMDemocrats, 2006 victories for Democrats; Howard Dean's foresight building base support in red states, etc. What did that bring us? MORE OF THE SAME BUSH SUPPLICATIONS among Democrats? We're a one party government.
Posted by Mal Feasance at March 26, 2007 05:51 AMAlex, I don't quite get what you're saying there about us going it alone. I know why we're going it alone, because we have a unilateral wanna be dictator running our foreign policy for the benefit of big corporations.
Your solution just isn't in any way realistic. Of course the Dems thought about these things, but that isn't going to make it happen. All you guys bashing the Democrats seem to think that just becasue we have the Congress in majority we can pass laws and force Bush to do things. But we can't, for all sorts of reasons, including the fact that they don't care about the laws, they only care about their goals. And good governance and reasonable actions and world wide betterment for all ain't one of those goals.
The one true and sure benefit of having the majority is that we control the committees and can subpeona the bushies and peel back the layers of their corporate criminal operations. And the more we do that the closer we get to exposing their whole rotten core, and then we get the troops out and the Bush Administration purged from our midst.
Posted by Duckman GR at March 26, 2007 07:04 AMDuckman,
Thanks for being a voice of reason on a site that seems recently to be slipping toward absurdity.
I especially love the slamming of the diversity of the Democratic party. The delusion that the vast majority of citizens should see things exactly the way some of the commenters here think they should is so very Republican.
And 'warmongering Democrats' is a good one too. God forbid our representation in Congress should take the nations long term interests into account instead of just 'ordering' an immediate withdrawal from Iraq consequences be damned. Because we all know that US armed forces will never have to drop another bomb or kill another non-combatant or have another soldier blown up if we just evacuate Iraq immediately and let them work it out themselves.
Get your heads out of the clouds folks. This is the reality based end of the spectrum isn't it?
Posted by snark at March 26, 2007 07:31 AMDuck, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The longer the US stays in Iraq, the more it'll bleed and chances increase it'll be retaliated against in a significant way. Georgie's self-fulfilling prophecy comes true. And the Dems just helped him by extending the invasion into 2008 and beyond.
The reason most countries wouldn't sign up whole heartedly for Georgie & Dick's excellent adventure was because they didn't quite buy the argument about WMDs in Iraq. They wanted to let the UN inspectors finish their job of inspections. That tells me they adhere to the belief that the UN and its process works. Georgie couldn't wait though.
Even then, some countries contributed small forces in the beginning and almost all of them have been reducing their numbers or withdrawing since then.
Whether it would have worked or not, is past. But most countries that matter work through the UN, and it would have been worth a look.
The Dems didn't explore any alternatives that I can see. If I missed it let me know. But with them it was question of funding or not funding. No other alternatives I'm aware of.
In 2008, I doubt that I'll vote for Democrats unless there's some significant accomplishment. I certainly won't vote for Republicans (not even wish-wash Hagel who changes his mind weekly).
I will consider third party candidates and certainly Bloomberg if he runs.
But it's time to stop voting for one-party government despite whether it's red or blue.
Posted by Alex at March 26, 2007 07:33 AMThis whole thread reminds me of the quote,
"The people have spoken... the bastards."
Cheney: Early Iraq Pullout Won’t Be Allowed
US Vice President Dick Cheney has assured political allies that an early withdrawal of US forces from Iraq would not be allowed, despite efforts by Congress to impose a deadline on US combat operations there.
The comments late Saturday followed a historic vote Friday in the House of Representatives, which called for a pullout of US combat troops from Iraq by August 31, 2008 — regardless of whether Iraqi security forces are ready to take over from them.
President George W. Bush has vowed to veto the measure. But the threat has called into question the future of a 124-billion-dollar emergency funding bill, to which it is attached.
Lacking line-item veto power, Bush can reject bills only in their entirety.
In light of this circumstance, the president acknowledged earlier Saturday that if the bill that finances the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is not passed by April 15, the military “will face significant disruptions.”
Cheney for his part used his appearance before the Republican Jewish Coalition in Manalaplan, Florida, to reassure allies that the current political struggle will not result in a precipitous US withdrawal from Iraq.
“A sudden withdrawal of our coalition would dissipate much of the effort that has gone into fighting the global war on terror, and result in chaos and mounting danger,” the vice president declared. “And for the sake of our own security, we will not stand by and let it happen.”
He did not explain what steps the administration could take if the supplemental bill dies in partisan bickering. But he expressed confidence in the final outcome, stating “We will complete the mission, and we will prevail.”
Rest of article here.
It includes a picture of Cheney addressing AIPAC, so it's a good guess he's reiterating comments from that meeting.
Posted by Alex at March 26, 2007 12:46 PM