The Republicans would rather destroy this country to save it.
And yet, public opinion says otherwise to the contrary.
And still, the Democrats...not...a...clue!
Posted by Alex at February 26, 2007 03:54 PMCongress is wrong to micromanage a war that it told the President to fight, polls notwithstanding. Congress has the constitutional authority to start (and stop) wars but not to involve themselves in how that war is to be fought. The President, according to the Constitution, commands the troops in wartime. President Bush, as usual, will disregard congressional attempts to share command responsibility and he will be right in this case.
Congress should declare the war over--we won--and order that the troops be withdrawn with haste.
Posted by Don Bacon at February 26, 2007 04:58 PMIf I'm Pelosi and Reid to use a Poker analogy, I'd go all in and force a showdown. With 2/3 of the country behind your position. There's no way BushCo could manipulate or (bluff) their way to victory on this issue.
And just for added measure I would draw up Articles of Impeachment beforehand for Bush, Cheney, Rice and any other tool who looks to thwart Congress' Constitutional authority. With the intention that the Impeachment porcess goes into effect if any of these clowns unlawfully defies Congress.
You hate to see it happen but Bush and GOP have brought this to a boiling point (ala Nixon in '74)
Posted by Jason at February 26, 2007 05:05 PMF
"Force a showdown"? How?
The Dems are not united--the Blue Dogs and a good part of the New Dems (DLC) won't cooperate. How many Repubs will participate in this showdown?
Get a woman to fight a woman. Condi is whining and bitching and moaning about Congressional interference with what the C-in-C wants to do, Nancy should call her out on it!
Posted by Rich at February 26, 2007 05:32 PM'The Dems are not united--the Blue Dogs and a good part of the New Dems (DLC) won't cooperate. How many Repubs will participate in this showdown?'
Well Don you're right, most likely wishful thinking on my part. At this point Dems can only do the best they can with the power they have and let public see that.
But you have to wonder how long until the survival instinct of GOP memebers kicks in and they realize they have sacrifice Bush in order to maintain any semblance of electoral long term prospects.
Posted by Jason at February 26, 2007 05:32 PMIf I'm Pelosi and Reid to use a Poker analogy, I'd go all in and force a showdown.
And there would be no more $1,000 - $5,000 dollar a plate dinners from the military-industrial lobbys. These guys may be whores to the lobbys, but they aren't stupid whores. Besides, there is no vote for two years. They have time to develop the memes about the changes they will make, and how better things will be...and lobby reform...if you are just patient...really patient...and not too observant.
As Pelosi says: "We must support the troo...Bechtel! Sure, I can do it on my knees."
Posted by phidipides at February 26, 2007 05:58 PMThe politicians will pout, pose and pontificate until hell freezes over. The only way these wars will stop is when the the troops realize that the real enemy is in the White House and they refuse to sacrifice themselves and their buddies to corporate greed and power.
Ultimately the Vietnam war ended because US armed forces just stopped fighting. A 1975 study published in The Journal of Social Issues documents how US troops, proportionally, opposed the war more than college students.
In the end, some troops rioted, a few killed their commanding officers (fratricide emerged as the leading cause of death for lieutenants), up to 33,000 a year went AWOL and an overwhelming number of active-duty grunts refused orders and simply would not fight.
The military was in shambles.
It was impossible to continue the ground war, while the air war was politically untenable without the ground war to justify it. The war ended when the peace movement and the military became one and the same.In fact, returning soldiers played a pivotal role in building the peace movement.
That’s the forbidden history we cannot know—because it’s the formula for ending wars.
Please support any and all efforts to fight the war machine. One good way is a contribution to Lt. Watada at http://www.thankyoult.org/
Posted by Don Bacon at February 26, 2007 07:38 PMOK, so maybe our Congress can't run the war, but can we at least change the arguement/words? Bush isn't managing the war, and we aren't micromanaging. We're looking for management, it's grabbing the wheel from a drunk.
Posted by Richard W. Crews at February 26, 2007 08:28 PMChavez just nationalized the Orinoco oil regions. Good for them, and damned interesting. Poor U.S. oil. They only get to keep 40% of the profits from Venezuela's oil rights. How will they ever survive?
I wonder how the most incompetent administration the United States has ever had will react? Condi Rice will dress well and compare Chavez to Hitler? The Mad King, idiot son of George, will threaten Iran? No matter. It will be an incompetent bullying response.
Posted by phidipides at February 26, 2007 08:35 PMoff-thread alert
Posted by Don Bacon at February 26, 2007 08:43 PMCongress is AWOL
News report:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq.
Senior Democrats who drafted the proposal, including Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, had sought swift action on it as early as this week, when the Senate takes up a measure to enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.
Reid, who will huddle with Democrats Tuesday to discuss whether to postpone the Iraq debate, cited pressure from victims' families for quick action on the Sept. 11 bill as the reason for doing so.
"Iraq is going to be there — it's just a question of when we get back to it," Reid said, predicting it would be "days, not weeks" before the Senate returned to the issue. The war reauthorization legislation also appears to lack the 60 votes it would need to pass the Senate.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., meanwhile, said she doesn't support tying war funding to strict training and readiness targets for U.S. troops.
The comments distanced her from Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who has said he wants to use Congress' spending power to force a change in policy in Iraq, by setting strict conditions on war funding.
off-thread alert
More likely off-topic. Yet oh so topical. Oil wars.
Posted by phidipides at February 26, 2007 08:59 PMOh right, phid. We need to limit troop deployment in the Venezuela war, Uh huh. Pass that joint, will ya?
Posted by Don Bacon at February 26, 2007 09:27 PMBottom line: Going with limits on troop deployment means going with more war instead of ending it. We'll send more teenagers to die in Iraq, but we'll limit the number. We'll send more Americans to kill Iraqis, but not as many as we might have. Bad. So the politicos can stay AWOL.
Phid will be more eloquent than me on this subject when he's in the mood again. Gotta get him back in Asia from his Caribbean holiday.
Posted by Don Bacon at February 26, 2007 10:06 PMPass that joint, will ya?
I'm only high on the good things in life: Powerful gasoline and clean underwear.
Phid will be more eloquent than me on this subject when he's in the mood again. Gotta get him back in Asia from his Caribbean holiday.
Being an International Man of Mystery has its rewards.
Posted by phidipides at February 27, 2007 06:26 AMDon, you take jason to task for wishing the Dems would "force a showdown", showing him that the votes aren't there in the Dem caucus.
Then you disparage every attempt various Dems are trying as micromanagement, demanding that they "declare the war over and orde that the troops wihtdraw".
If Dems are in such disarray they can't "force a showdown", however do you think they can alone "declare the war over"? I don't understand your position, since you're well aware that McConnell won't even allow debate of a non-binding resolution, yet he's going to allow debate on a resolution ENDING the "war"? Come on.
Perhaps Dems should they start telling the troops to quit fighting ala your Vietnam analogy. That's the ticket! (sarcasm)
Posted by euzoius at February 27, 2007 06:55 AMeuz,
I wondered if someone would pick up on that. Credit to you. You're right, and wrong. My position is based on the Constitution and consistent with it. If Congress doesn't respect the Constitution it's not my fault.
Life is full of contradictions, no? My answer to the current dilemma is that there is no answer. It's like: What is the purpose of life? No answer. The US 'City on the Hill' is sliding inexorably into an abyss. I, like you, enjoy examining it and proposing ways to stop it, but in truth nothing can be done. The US Congress will 'support the troops' forever and ever and ever while the well-connected profit--this can be easily manipulated by any US administration. No hope. But we'll still hope. Another contradiction. The only ones who can stop it are the troops themselves--and they can be marketed and bought. How much worse can it get? We haven't even scratched the surface yet. But life is good.
Posted by Don Bacon at February 27, 2007 12:27 PMFair enough. We think alot alike, if I may be a bit presumptuous.
Posted by euzoius at February 27, 2007 12:51 PMI wonder if Bush and Cheney will be appointed, or appoint themselves, to be members of the Iraqi Oil Council the Iraqi Legislature is being pushed into passing, so that Western oil companies (and Bush and Cheney) can gain control over Iraqi oil?
Hey, in two years time both Bush and Cheney will be without jobs, hitting the streets, begging for handouts in the private sector.
So I can see them setting things up whereby they'll both be on the Iraqi Oil Council, calling the shots, and raking in huge multi-million dollar bonuses each year.
What a perfect scam. And they, of course, don't give a damn about how many lives they've ruined or how much blood has been spilt in pursuit of their own mini-OPEC in Iraq.
Pathetic.
Posted by The Oracle at February 28, 2007 12:58 AM