When Democrats won control of Congress last November, Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi reiterated the party’s campaign rhetoric:
“Nowhere did the American people make it more clear that we need a new direction than in the war in Iraq,” the Californian told supporters in Washington.
In January, she co-authored a letter to President Bush opposing the new security plan for Baghdad:
Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror.
Yet the President is sending the reinforcements Gen. Petraeus wants (and so far, his plan is yielding results… but I digress).
Clearly, this “surge” was unacceptable to Speaker Pelosi and her new majority. At least, it should have been.
So what happened?
Instead of confronting the issue, Speaker Pelosi ended up backing a bill funding the war through 2008. She pulled out all the stops to fund the war. She bought votes with more pork than a Hormel plant processes in a year, earning editorial condemnation from the Washington Post and USA Today. Conversely she threatened to block requests for new funds for fellow anti-victory Dems who dared to suggest they might vote against it. She threatened the Chairmanships of anti-victory Dems like Rep. Barbara Lee. She had anti-victory activists arrested outside her office. She had the Rules Committee block an amendment to speed the withdrawal of US troops, even though it could have been part of a “Queen of the Hill” rule, for example.
In order to support this measure—so obviously against the Democratic Leadership’s campaign rhetoric and prior positions—the leading lights of the Leftosphere sprung into a defensive mode against the cries of their own target audience. The Commissar tried to sell his Kossacks on the idea that this was all about the next election. The Wanker told his minions that “you go to vote with the Democrats you have,” sounding for all the world like Donald Rumsfeld—except that Rumsfeld never said that the Army “sucked” as the Wanker did about the Dems. (BTW, House Appropriations Cmte Chairman David Obey, who also harangued his own base over the bill, defended it in Rumsfeldian terms.) At MyAgeOfAquarius.com, Chris Bowers was busy defending his personal integrity and ethics, as well as a biased MoveOn.org poll that blindsided the Out of Iraq caucus at the last moment.
What did Speaker Pelosi and her followers get for their efforts?
The bribery-and-broken arms approach eked out a bare majority in the House. But the consensus is that the bill will not survive a conference with the Senate, which rejected a 2008 timetable for withdrawal just last week. The nuttiest of the nutroots may fantasize in their fever dreams that this will result in defunding the troops, but sane people recognize this is not going to happen. Indeed, even the lefty bloggers linked above largely recognize that the ultimate resolution will likely be even weaker than what passed the House.
Passage of the supplemental was no doubt good short-term personal PR for Pelosi. It may also give a few terrorists in Iraq a momentary glimmer of hope to which they can cling. But the tactics used here on an issue of conscience will breed bad blood within the current House majority—and perhaps endanger a few of its rookie class. The already evident disenchantment among the nutroots will grow as they realize how badly they have been had. And the lefty bloggers’ theory that the foundation for a lasting majority can be built in 2008 by alienating their base in 2007 seems counter-intuitive at best… because nobody likes a tease. You can keep talking about that new direction, but if you don’t go all the way, you quickly become unpopular.
The conference bill will say whatever the Democrats in charge of Congress want it to say.
If the Republicans in the Senate reject the conference bill…oh, well, no money for the surge.
“oh, well, no money for the surge.”
You are scum.
I’m still trying to figure out why Pelosi looked so damned happy about it when she announced the vote total. “yay! we wasted all this time to pass a farm bill that doesn’t have a chance in hell of surviving!” makes me feel all warm and fuzzy knowing my husband could be stuck somewhere overseas when the funds run out. but Nancy feels good. so, there’s that.
Reading is a skill:
PW regulars know that when we discuss sane people, we are necessarily excluding alphie.
Not since 1861 have American politicians openly rallied against American troops. The ties that bind us together seem to be coming loose again. That may be the most catastrophic thing of all.
Karl,
Exactly how hard do you think Harry Reid is gonna work to get the deadline language removed?
To please the Republican Senators?
Speaker Pelosi promised a new direction for the war in Iraq. Her attempts to keep that promise by turning around a surge to victory and leading a retreat to surrender should be applauded instead of derided. A woman of her word in the truest sense.
And Alphie is celebrating, and hoping that the process accelerates.
alphie, you ignorant slut….
If he doesn’t get the deadline language removed:
1) The bill almost certainly never passes the senate, and if it does..
2) The President will veto the bill, and the Senate will never get enough votes to override such a veto.
yeah, gaharie.
And then…there’s no money for the surge or the occupation, so we bring all the troops home.
A civilization that cannot agree to defend itself is a civilization that will not survive. Sooner or later a Republican congress will use this tactic on a Democratic administration. Even if it doesn’t pass it will repeat the message this bill has sent. It is okay to opt out of being an American.
See, if making common cause with terrorists is fine, then how can other people feel compelled to bother with any of the other duties of citizenship? Our best and brightest do it, so should the rest of us.
This is a long escalator headed down. And the crash at the bottom may or may not have anything to do with terrorism. A country can split of a disagreement over exise fees or taxes on tea as easily as it can break apart over the common defense.
At this point it doesn’t look like there’s alot of middle ground between us, even our common survival.
I’m going to violate my own rule against engaging typing telephone poles here…
You do realize, alphie, that this is not the supplemental bill on war funding that’s supposed to come up for a vote in April, right?
Of course not.
um, not quite.
Sean, I din’t think Alphie matters much. I don’t think he ever has. The question has suddenly become this.
From this point forward will it be accepted practice for American Congressmen to hold the lives and livings of American soldiers hostage?
If the answer to this question is yes, and I fear it will be…well, that’s not good.
What a waste of time. What an expenditure of legislative time and resources. All this work to produce a bill that they will argue over and waste more time discussing and debating and negotiating and, eventually, passing a bill the president will veto. At which point the congress will have to do it all over again. And for what? Nothing.
As I have said before, I kinda like the split government. The more these guys waste their time posturing the less time they spend actually passing laws. Thats a good thing.
As for the Democrats giving the enemy hope, well, I don’t know a single military person that expects anything less from their democratic representatives.
Friend, it’s worse than that. Congress has defacto ruled that from this point forward starving its own soldiers while they’re on the battle field is acceptable political policy.
How long can a country that permits that survive?
as Karl said, good PR. looking like they’re Doing Something!â„¢ to fight the rethugs so they can be re-elected later on.
If we have reached the point that domestic political advantage trumps the lives of our soldiers and the safety of the nation then Iraq, as important as it is, might be superflous. It’s late, I’m probably should just get some sleep. Everything always looks better in the light of day. Still I wonder if we’ll look back at what happened today the way we look back at the Missouri compromise?
If I see any congress people in airpots, I’m spitting on them, albeit rhetorically.
Looks like most of the pressure is being put on the Iraqi government to get their act together. If this thing passes, we could be out of Iraq by the end of the year.
Just so we’re all on the same page, here is (I think) the section of this huge bill that that’s “controvesial”:
SEC. 1904.
(a) The President shall make and transmit to Congress the following determinations, along with reports in classified and
unclassified form detailing the basis for each determination, on or before July 1, 2007–
(1) whether the Government of Iraq has given United States Armed Forces and Iraqi Security Forces the authority to pursue all
extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias, and is making substantial progress in delivering necessary Iraqi Security
Forces for Baghdad and protecting such Forces from political interference; intensifying efforts to build balanced security forces
throughout Iraq that provide even-handed security for all Iraqis; ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making
false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces; eliminating militia control of local security; establishing a strong
militia disarmament program; ensuring fair and just enforcement of laws; establishing political, media, economic, and service committees in
support of the Baghdad Security Plan; and eradicating safe havens;
(2) whether the Government of Iraq is making substantial progress in meeting its commitment to pursue reconciliation
initiatives, including enactment of a hydro-carbon law; adoption of legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local
elections; reform of current laws governing the de-Baathification process; amendment of the Constitution of Iraq; and allocation of Iraqi
revenues for reconstruction projects; and
(3) whether the Government of Iraq and United States Armed Forces are making substantial progress in reducing the level of
sectarian violence in Iraq.
(b) On or before October 1, 2007, the President–
(1) shall certify to the Congress that the Government of Iraq has enacted a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that equitably
shares oil revenues among all Iraqis; adopted legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local elections, taken steps to
implement such legislation, and set a schedule to conduct provincial and local elections; reformed current laws governing the
de-Baathification process to allow for more equitable treatment of individuals affected by such laws; amended the Constitution of Iraq
consistent with the principles contained in article 137 of such constitution; and allocated and begun expenditure of $10 billion in Iraqi
revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis; or
(2) shall report to the Congress that he is unable to make such certification.
(c) If in the transmissions to Congress required by subsection (a) the President determines that any of the conditions specified in
such subsection have not been met, or if the President is unable to make the certification specified in subsection (b) by the required
date, the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq and complete such redeployment within 180
days.
(d) If the President makes the certification specified in subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of
the Armed Forces from Iraq not later than March 1, 2008, and complete such redeployment within 180 days.
Yeah Alphie the troops come home. (as if they need your pasty protection)
And when they return home they be fighting the same enemy who, with your assistance, will be following our soldiers to our shores. After the enemy gives us another crater in the ground you’ll be the first among many idiots to demand why Bush didn’t follow the dots.
That said, if bribery is the only way for the Copperheads to ‘win’ that not saying much about the House majority leadership nor about the voters who voted the Copperheads into office.
What nonsense.
What constitutes “substantial progress” in delivering “necessary Iraqi Security Forces for Baghdad”? How does one determine whether or not there are “intensifying efforts” at something? What, precisely, is “even-handed security for all Iraqis”? What would be considered a “strong militia disarmament program”? What is a “broadly accepted hydro-carbon law”? What constitutes “more equitable treatment of individuals”? By what means do we measure whether the Iraqi government is making “substantial progress in meeting its commitment to pursue reconciliation initiatives”?
Unless these terms are defined, it is impossible to state that these requirements have or have not been met.
Michael. This bill comes under that umbrella legislation so ably defined by Mel Brooks, “Gentlemen. We have to do something to keep our phoneybaloney jobs!”
Just another dog and pony show to keep the base engaged.
Okay, I’ve slept on it. And looked at it again. What I still see is congreess adopting the cause of our enemies purely for political advantage. Then holding American soldiers hostage to amke certain the enemy succeeds and thier political fortunes ascend.
I’m not so naive to believe that in a place like Washington this sort of political strategy won’t be used again now that it is out of the box.
Folks this is a domestic step towards ruin, exclusive of the War on Terror.
In other words this is an entirely new national pathology to be added atop the left’s fascination with cultural suicide. This is grim, grim stuff.
Ignorance is bliss is one of the truest truisms we have, Maggie.
Are there no emergency funding procedures in place for instances such as this? If not, someone in the administration seriously needs to find a fucking voice, I have had about enough of their bullshit psuedo-stoicism or whatever game they think they have been playing.
I will say it again: the fact they see Rove as some evil “genius” betrays the true lack of intelligence of the nutroots.
Rusty, that’s a great quote from Mel Brooks. How sad that such a large percentage of the electorate can be this easily fooled.
Ms. Pelosi’s joy at the announcement stemmed from the fact that it was a personal triumph for her. Of course it was a personal triumph won at the expense of institutions that had served and protected her, and her husband’s enormous fortune, all their lives.
That she would take this tack, and revel in it so obviously, reveals in her a childish aspect unbecoming one her age, and dagerous in one vested with her power.
I wonder, have we finally reached the point that there are too few grown-ups to keep the lid on?
Eh, there’s nothing bigger than Pelosi’s life. At least, not to Pelosi.
That’s the point, Rob. There’s nothing bigger than themselves to a great number of people. It’s understandable, and I’m as bad about it as anyone. But the urge to make ourselves the center of the universe is something we should all fight not embrace.
Because when we become the center of everything there is no room for faith, patriotism, community, duty, or compassion.
This vote signals that an alarming number of Americans believe just that.
B Moe,
While that criticism fits this administration regarding, well, pretty much everything they’ve ever done, I think they’re doing a much better job than usual on this one. Tony Snow has been making the rounds on the issue and he’s made it perfectly clear that 1. If this piece of shit makes it through the Senate, Bush is going to veto it and 2. What they’re doing is nothing more than repugnant political theater that is detrimental to our troops and their mission (and how about all that pork?). Then Bush himself said as much in yesterday’s presser and today’s radio address.
It’s about damned time that they’re calling a spade a spade. And when he does this, he gets a bump, and Congress gets hammered. Maybe he’s actually beginning to figure out how this game is played.
Base… ENGAGE !
“Four Protestors Arrested in Pelosi’s Office”
alpo 4 days ago:
alpo today:
Go strap on a bomb belt, jihad boy. That might give you a chance to be something other than a complete and total waste of time.
Case in point. The Democrats have pandered to their base so cravenly (systematic torutre, 9/11 truthers, etc, etc) that it cannot be bothered with the reality of what is before it now. Bush has to be Darth Vader, Islamists have to be Jedi Knights.
That base will demand more and more votes such as this, and if they are to remain in office the Dems will have to oblige.
But do not be fooled sooner or later the Repubs will be in a postion to exact revenge for all this with measures of thier own…measures that will further weaken the institutions that have served and protected this country and made it exceptional.
I fear the Repubs won’t be able to restrain themselves (Think Clinton impeachment).
Of course all this leads to government run on paranoid fantasies (Plame, Gonzales, plastic turkey) rather than reality. Geez, I’m depressing myself.
My son, a marine stationed in Al Anbar province, informs me that the marines are watching this circus with intense interest – and they’re not happy. They have an passionate devotion to the defense of freedom. Even more so, they have an incredibly intense and visceral hatred for seeing their buddy’s lives wasted to satisfy the basest of political motives. If allowed to complete their mission, they will have thought the price worth it. That’s how they are.
If the Congress actually creates a legislative showdown over the funding of the Iraq operations, the operations will continue and other operations of the government will be shutdown instead. The result will be the same political disaster that the Republican budget showdown was with Clinton, only magnified by two orders of magnitude as the Democrat party will rightly be cast as the enemy of our own military personnel.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi understand this even if it is too difficult a concept for alphie. The Democrats have already blinked and only alphie and the nutroots don’t know it.
The Democrats have just lost the 08 election. If this corrupt and pork-laden “deadline” exercise can get W riled up – and McCain! – how do you think it’s going to play with the Reagan Democrats? I can’t believe the Dems have done something so stupid so publicly, but I love it.
I hope so. As near as I can tell, Pelosi has no real political skill. She inherited her seat, and has never had to campaign or debate to keep it, so her entire career has been continuous fund-raising and buying influence. She pushed this bill through with pork-barrel hand-outs because that is all she knows, if that doesn’t work she should be a sitting duck if the Republicans will just pull the trigger. I just wonder if there is anyone on the right with the ability and balls to do it.
I have that sort of grim satisfaction one feels when one’s prejudices are confirmed. The Dems have once again picked a stupid way to do a stupid thing, and have in fact probbly just lost ‘08, though there’s obviously a time left for the Republicans to dig that hole deeper, or McCain to screw it up by TP-ing the yard.
Politics sucks, but until we find a better alternative to despotism, we’re kind of stuck with it.
Too bad we don’t have a non-partisan press corps to help keep people informed, that would probably dull the edges a lot.
Corvan and Robin Roberts are right. Other military expenditures will be cut to the bone. The President will re-submit the appropriation request.
The pressure to pass a clean bill will be on whom then?
I am in Australia right now and John Howard has just put his career on the limb saying that he would rather lose the upcoming election where is trailing badly than betray US. Now, the Labor party is sure going to use this decision. They’ll be asking why is John Howard so keen on keeping forces in Iraq when Americans themselves want to pull them out. I don’t know about you guys and the political gimmickry that you are talking about but from here it looks very bad. It might just take out John Howard.
Bob,
Actaully I was unclear. In this case the Democrats may very well fold. I’m not making a prediction on that. What I am saying is this. Symbols do matter. The symblogy apparent when memebers of congress clelebrate the successful betrayal of soldiers in the filed in the halls of congress is something that no one can miss. Not kids, not other countries, not aspiring politicians.
Now that the Democrats have established that soldeirs and the national defense are merely pawns to be held hostage to thier political will nothing is off the table. I predict very soon that there will be no depravity 8under the sun that congressmen will not champion openly in session so long as it accrues a politcal benefit to them.
I don’t doubt that one way or the other we will win the war on terror. But there is going to be another crisis. Maybe over something inconsequesntial by comparison (social security, taxes etc.) This congress makes it very apparent that any politcial ploy in furtherance of one’s goals is just hunky dory fine. Including threatening the safety and livlihoods of its constituents and servants.
IN that sort of atmosphere anything can happen, and probably will. The flash point doesn’t have to be terrorism.
alphie’s repeated insistence that somehow this is going to result in an end to funding the surge, or the Iraq op generally, is thisclose to balloon fence-level trolling.
Close, but no cigar.
As it’s obvious by now that he doesn’t read what’s written here before commenting, and barely reads the responses, here’s commentary from Reps. who want the funding cut off now:
This vote was not about defunding the war; it was about “sending a message.”
Or as cynn—another frequently dissenting voice here—so aptly put it:
cynn—and the smarter lefties—already get it. alphie may never get it.
Forgot the link for Woolsey and Cummings.
Promachus makes a good point as to America’s supporters about the globe. But I am more focused on what I see here. Which is a break down in the insittuions that we have trusted to safeguard the whole country, if not each of us individually.
The destruction of these insitutions, and congress is on the verge of destroying executive power as well as committing hari-kari is a dangerous thing, and something that grown-ups would never do. The fact that the rest of us either do not see what is happening or are to frightened to talk about is more discomfitting still.
Further, our aboslute refusal to in any way hold the MSM responsible for its paticipation in this slow suicide (Plame, sixteen words, Abu Grahib fixation, Plastic turkjey, the Gonzales psuedo-scandal, Mary Mapes, Jamil Hussein, Rosy O’Donnell and her 9/11 fantasies etc, etc is more scary still.
It is an indication that we would rather watch a train wreck, even if it is a train wreck we have manufactured from whole cloth, than deal with the very real and dangerous problems before us.
This action by this congress has made a dangerous time more dangerous still, by encouraging not only our enemies abroad, but also the peoole who have hidden away in their own fantasy world of Bush-conspiracies. Worse it has done these things at the expense of actually defeating people who are without a doubt as evil as any who have ever walked the face of the earth. And it has all be done it all solely for political gain.
If we’ll do this sort of thing when faced with a clear and reprehensible enemey intent on our destruction you can imagine what is going to happen when we are faced with the necessity of doing something about social security.
Put simply this congress has perfomred an act that makes this country’s union weaker. For that it deserves all the shame, scorn and contempt we can heap upon it.
I think Karl is right, but the message sent is a good deal more corrosive than any one is wiling to admit at the moment.
I apologize for bringing up Newt so much, but he likens these current times to what Lincoln faced in 1860. Indeed, much of the future of our country is riding on the coming years. But we are now, as we have always been, a dynamic people. I’m sure things looked pretty god damn dire to patriots of both causes in 1860.
I think we are watching a train wreck unfold before us and everyone is still sound asleep. That train wreck is going to happen one way or another and I think when real Americans wake up from the MSM lull they’ve been put to sleep by, this country is going to quickly re-establish the core character it has always embodied; Profound loyalty to and pride in a free society.
The effect of the “message” is a distinct issue. My hope would be that our enemies recognize how weak the message actually is as an anti-victory statement—it was not “bold” as Woolsey would have had. In a perverse way, it could even set up a game of “good cop, bad cop” for the US vis the Iraqi gov’t (and perhaps the Saudis and Jordanians). But that was certainly not the Dems’ intent, and it could turn out to be as corrosive as corvan suggests.
HF,
I think you’re right, but it could be very costly, and the result isn’t gaurunteed. I know this. We aren’t doing ourselves any favors by discussing this vote as if it were sinmply political theater. I suspect it will prove to be much more than that. If not in the war on terror in the coming confrontations on taxation, entitlements and immigration.
If the congress does not value the welfare of its citizens abroad and the sacrifices they have made at its behest there is precious little chance it won’t roll over the rest of us when the mood strikes it.
Tomorrow’s gab fests will be important I think, for they will be an indication as to whether the press will give cover to this vote. If it does you can rest assured it will give cover to anything that suits it politically in the future, and that its politcal ambitions will be the only force behind its reporting from now on.
Karl,
I could be wrong. I certianly hope I am, but at this point how our enemeies perceive this could be of secondary importance. Right now the question is how do our polticians perceive what has been done here. And all indications are that both sides of the divide, and the media that is supposed to watch over them, think of it as standard operating procedure. The rest of us let that perception stand at our peril, our support or lack thereof for the war aside.
Another Newt-inspired “train wreck” analogy the Left should consider is the gov’t shutdown in ‘95. If Congress drags its heels on funding the troops, the Dems will get the blame, as about 80 percent of the public is concerned about Dems hastily yanking troops from Iraq.
Dems like Cummings have figured this out. Mopes like alphie, not so much.
One of the reasons to point out that it is political theater is precisely so that the public, most of which does not think deeply about it (and certainly gets no help from the MSM on this pont), may recognize just how potentially dangerous it is, undertaken for no reason other than for short-term politics (and, as noted, politics that are not even very popular on the Left).
If the Dems were dumb enough to cause an alphie-esque train wreck on funding the troops, the public certainly would notice. Enough of them are smarter than alphie (faint praise, I know) that I doubt it will happen.
tw: doubt95. Uncanny.
Karl,
I am concerned this goes beyond politcal theater. I am concerned that the utter disregard for the troops, the war, the facts and the respective roles of the executive and the legislative is in fact a threat to the whole blomming government, if not now, in the longer run.
In anceint Greece plays were only staged on the holy days. Because the Greeks realized that theater matters. This bit of theater tells every citizen in this country, if he pays attention, that not only does their government not have thier backs it has the backs of the people who want them dead.
If they’ll sell the rest of out on something this big (and grin happily for the canmeras after they do it) what will they do to us on the votes that aren’t perceived as being quite so important about issues that don’t garner quite so much attention?
The troops are the canary in the coal mine on this. I think the congress has crossed into territory that is very dagerous for the fabric of the nation.
Their protestations that this is just a symbolic stab in the back ring sort of hollow to me.
It’s not what is done in this situation. Like I said, I think the Democrats will cave. It’s the fact that the United States Congress considered, brought to the floor, wrangled over, and handed out cash prizes for the hamstringing of a military mission while soldiers were under fire, and knowing full well that the bill might produce a train wreck that would deprive soldiers (their own constituents) of combat pay, ammunition and arms shows us all that congress’s mind isn’t in the right place as far as the welfare of American citizens goes. That’s the problem. And that’s why Alphie has disappeared. Even he can see it now.
Our refusal to talk about it loud and long is simply an invatation for it to happen again on another issue.
It’s behavior like this that gets me so profoundly wound up about the possible American responses to a nuclear 9/11. The strongly Anti-War groups (the ones who started war protests in October 2001) have through a great deal of persistence, managed to alter the shape of the debate, and a number of Americans have forgotten that we are at War, and a even large number of Americans have forgotten that we are engaged in a Global War, in which Iraq is only one campaign.
If the Democrat’s politcal theater can be taken at face value a large number of Americans are at war with the Bush Administration, and not overly concerned about what happens with the people they have managed to trap in the cross fire. (i.e. American soldiers, moderate Muslims, Iraqis loyal to the coalition, women living in Muslim countries around the world, women living in Sharia dominate households outside of the Middle East, Israeli Jews vicitmized by Muslim terrorists, Indonesians victimized by Muslim terrorists, Muslim democrats imprisoned across the Middle East and Christians living in the middle east.)
All of that aside. The most pressing problem here is that the congress is laying down precedents right now that could prove tragic for the union in the future. If the soldiers, and ordinary Americans as well, come to the conclusion that their government is more than happy to hang them out to dry for the sake of the fringe vote then there is precious little reason to particpate in or even tolerate the society, is there?
For the sake of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts, the New York Times, CNN International and the Portland demonstrators the congress of the united States was happy to tell American soldiers sailors and Marines to sod off.
If they’ll od that, what won’t they do?
Are you saying soldiers should determine America’s foreign policy, corvan?
No Alphie that’s the fringe vote’s line.
What I’m saying is that the Congress of the United States in pursuit of the fringe vote has decided to accrue to itself executive power, and restrict (with an eye toward ending) funding for the defense of soldiers it voted to place in harms way.
Further it has decided that it should assume the powers of commander in chief of the armed forces by forcing the executive to report ot it on the tactics, progess and strategies used in this war.
Worse, it has sought to acheive theses ends by handing out pork so ridiculous that even its own members blush at its scope.
Even worse it has done these things with out having the courage to reconsider the votes it orginally gave to approve the mission.
Worst of all it so craven it doesn’t even have the courgae to call the measure what it is, but instead lables it a symbolic vote.
Finally I am also pointing out that the congress in its symbolic refusal to actually provide for the troops ( a move you championed earlier in the thread) actually discourages all Americans from being active in the defense of their country (ever) and in particiaption in the duties that citizenship demand.
What I’m saying is that the United States congress has, through conscious action, undermined the enitre Union on a constitutional and political level. That’s what I’m saying.
corvan,
I would say (and should have made clear) that this episode both is political theater and goes beyond politcal theater.
It is political theater for the reasons originally stated; the Dems here ultimately understand that they are not ending the Iraq campaign but “sending a message.”
As you suggest, it also goes beyond political theater. While the Dems are “sending a message,” there is no suggestion in any of the news coverage that the House Dems recognize or care that the message that they intend to send to their supporters reaches a global audience—depressing the morale of the troops they claim to support, possibly emboldening our enemies, encouraging the Iraqi govenment to engage in CYA with Iran, etc.
Your last comment assumes that the Dems do so intentionally. That’s possible, even probable in some cases. But when I listen to what passes for political discourse generally among the House Dems (and to be fair, a lot of the House GOP also), it is far from clear to me that they think much beyond what is in their immediate self-interest.
Nor do I think that we should discount the ability of the minority of Leftist “true believers” to be blinded by their ideology. It is entirely possible, for example, that Rep. Woolsey really believes that an immediate pull-out from Iraq would enhance our national security—and that no amount of data (historical or otherwise) will convince her to the contrary. If that means dismissing the effect it has on the morale of our troops, so be it; I’m sure she would dismiss it with the same condescending attitude that Sen. Kerry displays toward the troops from time to time. After all, the progressism is founded in no small part on the notion that “experts” can run things much better than the people—if only they are allowed to do so.
Is all of that dangerous? Sure it is. But the general public will not recognize that danger until they recognize that the vote was in fact political theater—that it has all of the negative substantive effects while its proponents do not expect actual policy benefits.
The silver lining (if any) is that the Dems may yet overplay their hand, reinforce the fears the public has about the Dem majority, and act accordingly in 2008… even as the far left sits at home, disillusioned at the promises Pelosi & Co. broke.
Moreover, should the Petreaus plan continue to bear fruit, the general public opinion of the Dems’ position in 2008 may be quite different, in which case the public will be far more receptive to hearing about how dangerous the Dems’ approach really is.
alphie,
Nice attempt to change the subject.
I’m also saying that if the media, and the rest of us as well, refuse to confront this measure for what it is, a constitutional power grab designed to please the fringe vote and harm the ability of troops in battle to defend themselves we will be faced with things like it again and again…sometimes on military matters, sometimes on domestic matters. Sometimes the culprits will be, as in this case Democrats, and sometimes they will be Republicans.
This congress has allowed a genie out of the bottle that it might have a hard time corraling. and the ramifications of its behaviour might very well be felt down the road on matters that don’t have one thing to do with the war on terror.
It is special interest pandering gone completely beserk, and if allowed to continue will grow worse and worse.
Karl,
That sounds like wishful thinking.
Has it not sunk in that our Iraq adventure is coming to an end one way or another?
Karl,
As far as the WOT goes I don’t see this as a disaster. I suspect the Dems will fold. I suspect the surge will continue to pay dividends. I also suspect the Iranians are in the throws of a melt down of epic proportions.
The problem here, and it is a huge problem, is what the congress percieves itself as being empowered to do.
At this moment it feels entirely comfortable putting the boot to soldiers it authorized to go get shot at, without making provision one for bringing them home or even bothering to retract its previous authorization.
Further, it feels completely at ease in attempting to soak up powers completey reserved for the executive. Beyond that it is thrilled to pose for the cameras with a huge grin spread across its mug after it has committed these repulsive acts.
Don’t think that other politicains and parties won’t take note. If we continue to allow this congress to send the message to future congress’s that politcal power trumps loyalty to fellow citizens, country and constitution then that is what we will get.
This might not be a particularly dangerous time for the WOT, but it is a very perilious time for the Republic. Not becuase of what is happening now, but because what this opens the door to in the future.
This congress sees no bound, eithical or copnsitutional on its desire to please a constituency it claims does not make up the bulk of its base. That is a very, very dangerous thing. The fact that some of them may not realize what they’re doing only makes it more dangerous still.
None of them are even pretending to represent their country. They are instead representing their careers, and in the moist craven and dangerous method possible.
Karl, are you nuts?
That was a PATHETIC attempt to change the subject on alphie’s part.
Are you just patting it on the head hoping it will go away?
Karl,
Given the behaviour of the gang of fourteen, and Trent Lott’s conduct on pork I don’t think the Repubs have any interest at all in pointing this out for what it is.
Right now it appears to be a huge political miscalculation on the part of the democrats. The Repubs can portray it as such, (Political theater don’t you know) without making mention one of just how deletorious this is to the nation as whole. That way they get to save this sort of strategy for their own use later. Of course to do that they would have to blind themselves to the fact that the Dems are slipping into panic mode right now, but what congressman you’ve ever heard of wasn’t convinced that he was the smartest person on the face of the earth?
See, and admittedly this is all the rankest and most reprehenisble speculation, but what the hey it’s just a blog, congress persons all want to be president. The beauty of it is, if things continue this way they all can be. Without having to run nationally and with the full cooperation of the MSM scandal machine they will each be king of their very own little gerrymandered district from whihc they can dole out favors and dictate national policy to a useless executive.
It’s a great set up. If only the founding fathers had put it in the constitution. But they didn’t. Not that your average congressman is letting that bother him much.
And yes Alphie, assuming the Republic survives the balkanization this will cause, one day the shoe will be on the other foot and a Republican congress will do this to a Democratic president. Hey, they might even impeach him in a sitaution where a simple bar complaint, serious sanctions from a federal court and a few months of horrible publicity would do…. Ooops.
The Newt-Clinton showdown shut down government services and stopped people getting checks. This Iraq bill won’t have that effect.
I wouldn’t count on past showdowns to shield the Iraq occupation.
That is what is saddening me, where are the brawlers on the right to take the Democrats on? I can’t think of a single person over there with any backbone or rhetorical skills at all. It truly is a congress of barely literate, inarticulate dunderheads.
alphie and his ilk have transendended post-modernism into pure post-sentience. They are so pumped up on artificial self-esteem that have lost any semblance of critical self-awareness.
A surge to victory? Petraeus himself helped write the new Army Counter Insurgency manual. It states we’d need half a million troops for peacekeeping in a country with the population of Iraq, 120,000 for Baghdad alone. That’s when there’s a peace to keep. To quell a standard one enemy insurgency we’d conservatively need a million soldiers. I’m guessing for this monumental clusterf*ck we’d need a million and a half. We’ve been up to 160,000 troops before. It only resulted in more violence. Regardless it’s about 9 or 10 times too few troops to make the difference.
While General Petraeus is an honorable soldier following orders and probably one of our best generals the escalation isn’t his plan, it’s Bush’s. Petraeus himself says we’ll know by late summer whether it will work. If it does the Democratic congress will deservedly get more credit for putting pressure on Iraqis to end their war than Bush and his open ended whack-a-mole, bleed the US Army to Death strategy will.
But it most likely won’t work. There’s too much ordnance laying around. Too many corrupt people who see fighting over the spoils as governance, lessons learned from both Saddam and the Bushies. Too many people driven crazy by war, by grief, by fear.
In the near term I imagine the Senate will pass a bill much like this one. If Reid is smart he’ll pass the House bill intact. Bush won’t veto it. He’ll simply ignore everything but the money via signing statements.
No matter how it shakes out he gets his pointless short term escalation and you guys and the Republicans in congress except for the likes of Walter “Freedom Fries” Jones of NC-08, who voted for the bill, (BTW Camp Lejeune is in his district) get to defend it all summer long.
Come September we’ll see what happens. Will the violence be sufficently lessened or pushed out of Baghdad where it won’t be seen or reported for Bush to declare victory and start moving troops out? You 30 percenters better hope so.
Come to think of it this fictional Democratic president might even feel so ham strung that he is forced to launch a couple of missles at an asprin factory while americans are being blown to smithereens. Even then he’ll still hear plenty of “Wag the Dog” accusations. Darn…oops again.
Look, I’m not trying to portray myself as a Clinton supporter. He did some good stuff and some horrible stuff, but the point is this. The congress since Regean (remember Iran contra) has been grabbing executive power wiht both fists, and pretending upon our plotical alignment and who was in office where we have been pretty much happy to egg it on.
Now we have reached the point where an American congress, in an effort to please a fringe group, and to enhance its own power has intimated that American soldiers in harm’s way might just have to take one for the team. (the team being the congressman in questions re-election chances).
Alphie is thrilled. Me? Not so much. I hope other people aren’t so thrilled either. What’s more I hope they’re willing to talk about it.
You’re off by a month. The anti-war movement started getting organized around 9/13/2001.
But enough about the Democrats.
And of course Mark shows up to help Alphie completely miss the point. Fellas I kid you not, this is an act by congress that is unconstituional and unconscionable at the same time. It looks good to you now becuase you feel it will help your appointed side (even as they begin to sweat bullets over voting for the thing) but your time will come. A republican congress will get its shot at a democratic president. Maybe the stakes will be higher, maybe they won’t. The results will be the same…a further weakening fo the ties that hold us all together as a nation.
If the two of you, or anyone else hanging about the board, is looking for a dramatically different country to be a a part of you will find it…soon. And right here if things continue at this pace. And the change will have very little to do with terrorism and everything to do with what the democratic party has done this weekend in the name of denying that terrorism exists.
Corvin,
The “point” seems to be that the pro-war crowd is, once again, engaging in magical thinking instead of facing reality.
Unless you think Harry Reid is going to ride to the rescue, Bush is either gonna have to accept a timetable or else the Pentagon is gonna have to put a tip jar up on its website to keep the occupation of Iraq going.
They don’t care. It is not just rhetoric when the left bitches about “right-wing ideologues”. The progressive movement has no political ideology, they just want what they want. If the majority is with them, then the majority rules absolutely, if not then twist up the Constitution and wring it out of there somehow. There is no place for process and procedure in the important action alert world of today.
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php
Dec. 29, 2006
Excerpts:
This is why you’d better hope Bush wises up and declares victory by September. Either that or get your butt down to your local recruiter to volunteer for driving around waiting to get blown up.
Markg8 could you please read the thread and either address the issues or go start your own fucking blog? We understand you are opposed to the war, and the surge, and have read all this shit and answered it when you posted it the dozen or so fucking times before. Now either pay attention to what we are talking about or fuck off, your spam is getting tiresome.
DEMOCRATS: SOLDIER’S LIVES WORTH PEANUTS
NO BLOOD FOR PORK
A little Republican hypocrisy for ya:
Then-GOP Presidential candidate Governor George W. Bush: According to the Houston Chronicle:
“Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton’s administration for not doing enough to enunciate a goal for the Kosovo military action and indicated the bombing campaign might not be a tough enough
response. ‘Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,’ Bush said.â€Â
[Houston Chronicle, 4/9/99]
Then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX): “Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult speech for me to
give, because I normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that they are doing. But I cannot support a failed foreign policy. … But before we get deeper embroiled into this Balkan quagmire, I think that an assessment has to be made of the Kosovo policy so far.
President Clinton has never explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent. … Was it worth it to stay in Vietnam to save face? What good has been accomplished so far? Absolutely nothing.â€Â
[Congressional Record, “Removal of United States Armed Forces from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,†4/28/99]
Then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX): “I had the utmost confidence in President Bush. He
had laid the groundwork, and our national interest in the Middle East was clear. In the gulf we had a
country that was invaded [Kuwait], and an oil interest to defend. … [In the Balkans] we have a president I don’t trust, who has proven my reason for not trusting him: had no plan. We have a civil war that was falsely described as a huge humanitarian problem, when in comparison to other places, it was nothing.â€Â
[Washington Post, 5/4/99]
Then-Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (R-OK): “The Administration, and NATO as a
whole, greatly miscalculated the response Slobodan Milosevic would have to a bombing campaign. As I
predicted, the Administration has escalated what was guerilla warfare into a much more serious conflict. The bombings have unleashed an evil reign and resulted in a humanitarian disaster.â€Â
[Senator Don Nickles, Press Release, 4/21/99]
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK): “President [Clinton] has decimated our ability to defend ourselves.†[USA Today, 4/5/99]
Representative Randy “Duke†Cunningham (R-CA): “This is the most inept foreign policy in the history of the United States.â€Â
[Washington Times, 4/29/99]
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN): “This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.â€Â
[New York Times, 5/4/99]
April 5, 1999—USA Today quoted Senator Richard Shelby (R AL), as saying, “Obviously, we are
not winning the war.â€Â[USA Today, 4/5/99]
April 13, 1999—In a speech, Representative Tom Campbell(R-CA) denounced the military campaign
in Kosovo and said, “We are presently at war and it is an unconstitutional war.â€Â
[New York Times, 4/14/99]
April 13, 1999—Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (R-OK) criticized Clinton and said,
“I think he’s gotten us into a mess. I don’t think you can bomb a country into signing a peace
agreement.†[Washington Post, 4/13/99]
April 28, 1999—House Republicans undermined U.S. foreign policy by rejecting a resolution
(S.Con.Res.21) authorizing the ongoing NATO air campaign in Yugoslavia. A Washington Post
editorial said of the vote, “The Republican leadership has shown an amazing lack of leadership. Cowardice triumphed over principle. … Those who will more likely suffer from this abdication are the NATO alliance, its military campaign, the Kosovars and, in the long run, the Republican Party itself.†House Republicans defeated the resolution 213 to 213. [House CQ Vote #103, 4/28/99; Editorial, Washington Post, 4/30/99]
May 2, 1999—Then-GOP Presidential candidate Bob Smith (NH) questioned the fate of the Kosovo
military conflict and said, “I’m opposed to saying, ‘Let’s go in and win it,’ because I don’t know what win means. Do we go in and flatten it? … I don’t want another Vietnam. I don’t want to have people say we’ve wasted a thousand lives for nothing.â€Â[Portsmouth Herald, 5/2/99]
May 4, 1999—The Scotsman reported, “The Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, said at the weekend:
‘I think that, as Jesse Jackson would say, give peace a chance here. There seems to be some
momentum. There seems to be an opportunity – we should seize this moment. As a matter of fact,
you know, I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn’t think we had
done enough in the diplomatic area.’â€Â
[Scotsman, 5/4/99, emphasis added]
May 5, 1999—The New York Times quoted Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA) as saying, “We should
not use Social Security to pay for a war in the Balkans.â€Â[New York Times, 5/21/99]
May 7, 1999 – Speaking on the House floor, then-GOP Presidential candidate and House Budget
Committee Chairman Rep. John Kasich (R-OH) criticized the Clinton administration’s policy in
Kosovo and said, “Escalating this war doesn’t make any sense because starting this war did not make any sense.â€Â[Washington Times, 5/7/99]
May 7, 1999—The Washington Post quoted GOP House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (TX) as saying,
“While we may not support the President’s ill-advised war, we do support our troops. … Without any coherent international blueprint, the White House has bombed its way around the globe while dropping troops far and wide for ill-defined peacemaking duties. This policy has gutted the American military, which now must be rebuilt.â€Â
[Washington Post, 5/7/99]
May 19, 1999—GOP members of the House Armed Services Committee voted to prevent the use of
any of the funds in the fiscal year 2000 defense authorization to fund NATO’s efforts—combat or
peacekeeping—in Yugoslavia. Democratic Rep. Gene Taylor (TX) offered an amendment to remove
the Yugoslavia funding restriction, but Republican committee members defeated the measure 27 to
31. [CQ House Committee Coverage, 5/20/99]
May 20, 1999—While speaking on the floor of the Senate Banking Committee about funding air
assaults in the Balkans, Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) said, “I don’t see how we are going to save Social Security if we keep spending the surplus.â€Â
[Washington Times, 5/21/99]
Did that make my ass look fat?
Be honest.
alphie suggests that it’s magical thinking to point out that Reps. Woolsey and Cummings are among those falt-out saying the House bill is going nowhere. And to point out that the Senate already rejected this time table. In alphieworld, Harry Reid is going to come back from conference with a bill he knows won’t pass, because he desperately wants to be seen as ineffectual himself, or as engaged in an action that will harm the troops already in the field. Sure, of course, that’s exactly what’s going to happen. I’ll tag this thread so that when theinevitable occurs, alphie can be reminded of his amazing predicitve skills.
Markg8 appears to see hypocrisy. Oddly enough, he misses the hypocrisy of those who supported a UN-unapproved military action that had little to no relationship to our national security, but oppose the US fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.
OTOH, Markg8 has no link to the roll call vote where Republicans voted to force the US out of the Balkan conflict. Wonder why that is?
Forgot to mention that the Military Times poll is based on mail-in responses, which is to say it’s as unscientific as an online poll.
b moe if you had something interesting to say I’d answer it. But seeing as you don’t I post facts you’ve seemingly forgotten.
So, you’re hoping the violence won’t be lessened or pushed out of Baghdad? Nice. I guess you’re not anti-war, you’re just on the other side.
Markg8,
I think we’ve all seen you demonstrate on more than one occasion that you wouldn’t know a fact if it came up to you, pulled out your colostomy bag, fashioned a hat out of it, and stuck it on your melon.
No Alphie that isn’t the point. Not even close. And the sad thing is Mark misses it by more than you do. This is a bipartisan problem fostered by years of myopia and out right silliness just like the kind the two of you are exhibiting right here right now. The two of you really don’t function well outside of the talking points do you? Ah well, I said my piece there’s bound to be a ball game on somewhere tonight…
But allow me to reiterate just so I can say I told you so later. The surge aside, terrorism aside. This vote has been a disaster for the country and for the Democrats and for the Republicans.
You are both working very hard to create a country that is completely ungovernable. Sooner or later you will be forced to ask the rest of us for forebearance during your time in the majority. Maybe sooner than you realize. Maybe on something more important than you realize. When you do you had better hope that none of us act like you have. But at his point, considering the precedent this congress is laying down there will be very little reason to act any differently than you.
Oh, and just to sink to your level. How much longer do you figure Joe Lieberman will remain a Democrat?
And now that Fox has had itself an overnight news cycle how do you think the blue dog democrats from the south are feeling about the vote they just cast? Let me venture a guess…sweaty. Now that I think about it, what do you figure Senator Webb is hearing from his old Navy buddies right now? I doubt many of them are saying “Starve us out Jim, we love it.”
No, the Democrats picked out their kneepads on this one a long time ago. I venture to guess a number of them voted for this measure wiht the understanding and devout hope that it would never become law. That’s why they didn’t have the nerve to attempt a revoke of the authorization.
But quite frankly, that doesn’t much matter. The damage they have done to the body politic with this pretty much useless bill is what matters at this point, and it will be very hard to fix.
Don’t believe even for a minute that when Lott and company are back in control that you won’t recieve the same sort of treatment, and don’t belive for a moment that it won’t bring the demise of Democratic-Republican government closer.
Karl: markg8 is going for the “post longwinded screeds and hope it drowns out those icky rightwingers I want permanently out of power” strategy.
The jihadi boys, alphie and markg8, do have some reason to celebrate. This bill has done damage by giving aid and comfort to a lot of alphie and markg8 friends who have been pretty desperate for some sort of encouragement to keep fighting. They got that.
It seems doubtful that it will get through the senate containing the language of defeat by timetable, and if it does, back to the house it goes from the president’s desk. At that point, I expect the furor over the earmarks to be such that the next go round won’t be able to politically sustain them in a lot of Blue Dog democrats eyes. That group won’t go for defeatist conditions if the earmarks aren’t in there. Going by President Bush’s response yesterday he will make sure that the earmarks and the defeat timetable stay connected when he vetos. 5 reps back away next time around and Pelosi has to treat the bill above board.
Still, a lot of damage was done yesterday. Damage to the dems, which I could care less about, and to the ability to prosecute the WoT, which I do.
Because Clinton won the damn war before they had a chance Karl. Didn’t stop them from trying to sue him though. From the 6/15/99 Pittsburg Tribune Review via the Free Republic:
And Karl you’d have to ask them about their methodology but the Military Times thinks it’s scientific enough to claim a 3 point margin of error. It’d be my guess that if they did get more response from the younger guys, the ones who actually goi outside the wire and ride around waiting to get blown up or be sniper bait the results we be even more negative.
BTW:
markyg8 – you do realize that the approval ratings for the legislature is less than that for the president according to gallup?
I’m curious what the next Gallup poll will say about the legislature’s approval rating.
Odd thing though. Seeing as how he can’t run again, Bush would seem to be unfettered by poll pressure and doesn’t have to play to the cheap seats. The folks in the legislature don’t have that luxury. Tough position to be in if 11/06 – when the legislature was also >30% approval tells any tale.
Hey Les aren’t you the guy who thought turkeys could fly?
I see no reason to spread the war to the rest of the provinces wingnuts have been claiming are peaceful for the last 4 years. You obviously think of that as a success strategy. Just whose side are you on?
alppuccino that was actually pretty clever. Which leads me to believe you stole it.
Odd, then what was I doing in Sarajevo over a year after President Clinton said the boys would all be home? Oh, you meant KFOR? They are all out, right?
Thanks for the compliment followed by showing me that you let your personal feelings determine what you believe to be true. Well played sir.
Ask around.
Wow the wonder twin powers of little “a†& marky mark never fail to disappoint, because no point or topic of a thread is safe when they combine their delusional powers to ignore reality, project irrational view-points & change subjects in the form of a dripping water faucet.
Funny how both don’t seem to realize that this latest bill passed by only 6 votes & that 12 Democrats crossed the aisle (compared to only 2 Republicans) & how many are going to cross again once the funding has been pulled for the troops in harm’s way. President Bush will hold a press conference & tell the American people that he only wanted a straight up & straight down bill funding the troops in the field, not to finance peanut storage.
The initial Democratic response was to attach pork laden ear-marks to barely pass a bill that will be met by a well publicized veto. Once the funding is really in danger & the Executive Branch refuses to budge, the Democratic Congressional cabal headed by Reid & Pelosi will show their true colors, like the professional politicians w/ something to lose that they are, & either cave in or face the voting American public in a 2008 Presidential Election w/ no answer as to why they decided that the need to chastise a lame-duck President was more important then insuring troops on the ground or at home had the supplies, materials & training that they need to do their jobs.
Now Pelosi & Reid are faced w/ either trying to push an agenda that will never gain enough votes to ever become law & over-ride a veto or to doom their Party’s political future & piss off their already unhinged base. Those claiming that Bush will not take a stand seem to forget he has already taken stands against people who truly are dangerous & powerful (Saddam, Iran, No. Korea) & taken unpopular positions before. What threat can Pelosi follow up w/… subpoenas, further investigations, impeachment… they have been playing that card now for almost 4 years & they have accomplished nothing.
The real danger for the Democrats is how will this pathetic & ill timed stance effect the 2008 Congressional elections? Who really wants to face the voting public w/ a record of non-funding troops fighting a war, when they had previous voted to fund & support them? It’s a loss-loss proposition for them politically & the only benefit is that they can look their crazed, anti-war supporters in the eyes & say “I tried.â€Â
Those clamoring that the Bush Administration press the attack keep missing the point that by remaining mostly silent & keeping on message regarding Iraq, they are side-stepping the directed attention of the Democrats & depriving them the political punching bag that they want & need to appear legitimate. Hell, the longer they remain distant, the more out of control & self destructive the Democrats become, because their base is constantly pressuring them by demanding immediate actions & results. This pressure is also being applied to their Presidential Candidates & will inevitably force them to appeal more to their base, to continue their support & drive them further from the middle & more to the left. Hillary has already had to tack more towards the left, change her tune regarding the War in Iraq & that waffling has done nothing but strengthened Obama’s position & made the more moderate Republicans, like Giuliani, appear nothing but more attractive.
If the views or arguments expressed by our little “a†team here isn’t enough proof, the celebrating of a pork laden bill, doomed to fail, is.
Go UCLA!
Markg8, read this again:
And explain to me how this somehow bolsters you position?
(Hint: I bolded the controversial parts)
Markg8,
Thanks for revealing your complete ignorance about public opinion polling. Self-selection means that the sample is not random, making the results highly suspect at best. Go read your own link; it’s a mail-in survey. The sample selected itself, just like any bogus online poll.
As for your claim that there has been more violence when we’ve had more troops in theater, I suggest you download a copy of the Brookings Institution’s Iraq Index, which will show the opposite.
This “guess” is obviously based on the Kerry assumption that all soldiers are just uneducated dolts who are stuck in Iraq. You know, like Major John who’s just a shiftless soldier/lawyer.
……..bad example
BTW, if Markg8 really wants to stick with that poll, he also has to stick by the numbers that more of them think we will win in Iraq than can be found in the general population.
Also, the troops up close to the battle are re-enlisting at much higher rates. So that argument fails, also.
corvan the House just passed a bill with more money than Bush requested for the supplemental, not to mention cash that the Republican congress promised last year but never delivered with disaster relief, kids’ healthcare, the VA, Walter Reed, etc. Say what you want but you sound delerious claiming this starves the military of anything. And speaking of the military is you guys care so much about the troops where the hell is the outrage over Walter Reed? This bill would bar the expenditure of any funds to close Walter Reed Army Medical Center and provides $20 million to correct any problems at Walter Reed identified in congressional hearings and press reports over the past month. Maybe you think Walter Reed should be closed and it’s functions merged with Bethesda in 2001 as the BRAC commission says. IF this war’s still going on we’re going to need it intact and expanded fellas. A lot worse than we’re going to need new fighter planes or the goddam Osprey.
Here’s another particular in this bill: Spinach farmers from all over the country voluntarily recalled their product when that one farm screwed up and poisoned people last year. They lost a ton of money and many would have gone bankrupt. The ones who waited for the government to decree a mandatory recall were reimbursed immediately. Repubs tried to screw the ones who did the right thing. This bill remedied that.
Now maybe you think spinach farmers and processors ought to have private insurance to protect themselves when an E-coli outbreak threatens to wipe out their industry instead of counting on the federal government to come to the rescue and maybe you’re right. But Republicans would never mandate that because it’s, repeat after me, a reg-u-la-tion. And Republicans don’t do reg-u-la-tions. Now I like spinach. I like the occasional raw spinach salad. It’s good for you. I don’t want to see American spinach farmers wiped out because then we’d probably get the stuff from Mexico where their farm practices and Dept of Agriculture enforcement are, correct me if I’m wrong inexistente.
You got that? Now back to the original point. Do you know how silly you sound when you claim the Dems are cutting off funding to the troops?
Popeye’s a Dem. Who knew?
What were you doing Major John? I can tell you what you weren’t doing, you weren’t fighting for an Iranian backed government against a Saudi backed insurgency in a civil war.
alppuccino don’t make me google it and lose all faith in your sense of humor.
markg8 proclaimeth:
…and gosh, he still isn’t.
[…] I previously noted with respect to Iraq: The already evident disenchantment among the nutroots will grow as they […]
[…] was apparent on last year’s top issue of Iraq… last year. Indeed, as the Democratic leadership watered down their efforts on Iraq to irrelevance, I noted […]