8% favor no war funding.
-Abysmally low.
28% favor unrestricted war funding
-Nightmarishly high.
The 61% figure favoring restricted withdrawal is nothing but continuance of the war by other means.
What does this mean?
-Fascism is what it means.
"Every beast is driven to pasture by a blow."
- (Heraclitus, Fragment 41, Wheelwright translation)
-Wagner, (to Faust)
What troubles you, out there in the twilight?
-Faust,
See that black dog roving through the grain and stubble?
-Wagner,
I saw him long ago, I didn't think it mattered.
-Goethe- Faust, Part One
Translated by Randall Jarrell.
With this fucking attitude we'll never get out. The American people are some of the dumbest on earth. No wonder the Dems are dragging their feet.
Posted by JohnT at July 20, 2007 04:53 AMBush will request another $120 billion for his war in Iraq in September. It will be interesting to see who among the Dems say "no" or instead, allow themselves to be pushed into the corner by by Repugs bleeting about how they don't support the troops. Especially, as we get closer to the next presidential election.
Posted by Christopher at July 20, 2007 05:43 AMOnly sixty nine Dems and one Repug signed the letter to Bush. This shows you how serious they are in the House about withdrawal.
Posted by JohnT at July 20, 2007 05:45 AMTying the Iraq funding to a timeline for withdrawal works best politically when the funding vehicle is a supplemental bill rather than a mandatory Defense Appropriations bill, because a successful veto of the latter – and any continuing resolution – results in a partial shutdown of the government, rather than just the operations in Iraq.
This is a high-stakes tactic, and I don't think the Democrats have a strategy or the determination to make it work.
If Reid poisons the Defense Appropriations bill with a timeline for withdrawal, the regressives will blame the Democrats for pulling another "stunt" by shutting down the government. Predictably, the Democrats will not sustain the onslaught, choosing instead to again withdraw the timelime and submit a "clean" bill to Bush.
I think the best approach is for Reid to strip most of the Iraq funding from the mandatory defense spending bill, leaving enough money for state-side command/ops support and money for new armored vehicles. The result should be an overall spending bill amount close to the prior fiscal year amount. Reid can then have Bush submit a supplemental request for additional occupation funding.
The new supplemental bill can then be used by the Dems to leverage withdrawal. If Bush vetoes it, Pelosi needs to shelve it. Without additional funding, Bush will have to draw down troops in the near-term or agree to a mandatory timeline for withdrawal.
Posted by fafnir at July 20, 2007 05:47 AMGeneral: Iraq 'surge' assessment not likely till November
Senate hearing Thursday that he would need beyond September to tell if improvements in Iraq represent long-term trends.
"In order to do a good assessment I need at least until November," said Odierno, a deputy to Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in Iraq.
Who says this administration isn't trying to run the clock out and hand Iraq over to Hillary's administration to deal with?
Posted by Christopher at July 20, 2007 06:06 AMWhile we may want a timeline, seems others are also interested in a timeline.
For months September has been cast as a pivotal time for determining the course of the war in Iraq, yet a top general now says a solid judgment on the U.S. troop buildup there may not come until November.
Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno told he would need beyond September to tell if improvements in Iraq represent long-term trends.
"In order to do a good assessment I need at least until November," said Odierno, a deputy to Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in Iraq.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/4984111.html
Posted by Judith at July 20, 2007 06:08 AMChristopher, oops. Well you know what they say about great minds.
Posted by Judith at July 20, 2007 06:10 AMJudith - LOL! GMTA, indeed!
Posted by Christopher at July 20, 2007 06:27 AM"In order to do a good assessment I need at least until November," said Odierno, a deputy to Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in Iraq."
Well, I think we all knew something like this was coming. The ground work is being laid for Petraeus to say the "surge" is beginning to work, but more time is needed. In November, the report will say that success is dependent upon a few more troops to complete the mission, or some such nonsense. I don't know, but I know I am tired of beating my head against a wall. It hurts too much.
"The new supplemental bill can then be used by the Dems to leverage withdrawal. If Bush vetoes it, Pelosi needs to shelve it. Without additional funding, Bush will have to draw down troops..."
-(fafnir)
These over wraught nuances of strategic procedural and tactical finesses of political strategy are what serve to take all the passion out of what passes for American politics, well in advance of any substantive resolution.
This all but certainly assures in advance that absolutely nothing will happen of any substance.
It is the structure of the system itself, the very technics, the a priori givens of American government which militate decisively against change, not the numerical configurations of one party or the other.
To wit, even if the Democrats held overwhelming standing advantages in congress any meaningful legislation would be eviscerated in advance unless they are willing to break the rules and violate the structural tenants of the system itself.
The American Constitution is a dated document of little other than sentimental value. Since the GOP and fascism clearly understand this they appropriately treat it as if it does not exist.
The Democrats should follow suit, if not for the fact it cannot programmatically justify that, for that would lead to a self immolation. Stripped of the accoutrements of 'stylistic' differentiation from the GOP, the Democrats would be reduced to yet another variant of the plutocratic oligarchy -central to the living breath of America itself.
The rightist baby food content, so characteristic of the prevalent thinking evident on this blog, is all too clearly evidence of that hapless impotence.
For sure, you all wouldn't know what to do even if you ever got there.Why is that? Because you never had any plans to begin with except more of the same.
Damn straight on that!
Posted by Jill Bains at July 20, 2007 12:13 PM"The 61% figure favoring restricted withdrawal is nothing but continuance of the war by other means."
Precisely.
Posted by Shirin at July 20, 2007 12:35 PMBut the Democratic leadership and Congress is at 14% verses the presidents 36. Sure looks like Congress isn't the place to get this done.
Posted by peter at July 20, 2007 12:46 PM