What should be done next depends on how you judge GeeDubya’s character. What is he after?
I hear some seem to think he is trying to wait it out, keep Iraq simmering but not exploding until he gets a chance to hand it off. If such is the case, he would be more cautious, he would be looking for ways to compromise, looking to string it along in the longer term, to bring the Dems in as plausible scapegoats, but not give up so much power that they have their way with him.
But I don’t think so. I think he believes his own press releases. He believes that the surge is working, that it was a brilliant and creative notion, and that he’s going to win! In a matter of only a few months, it will begin to rain ponies on Lonesome George. The Sunni and Shia will fling themselves sobbing into each other’s arms and unite resolutely against Al Queda and all its forms. The capitals of the ME will tremble before him, the bringer of Liberty.
And the American people will gasp in wonder, deeply repentent, that they ever doubted him, and he will forgive them.
Is that crazy? OK, he’s crazy. But what it would mean as that any attempt to move quickly on some kind of closure will be resisted furiously. If the Congress withdraws the authority, he will find some tame legal academic to write him a paper that says he can tell them to suck it. Any route that heads towards court is fine with him, because he can tie it up forever, and all he needs is another Friedman unit and…the Day of Jubilee!
So - is he calculating and cynical, or batshit pizza? He takes the first route of he wants to offload some of the blame, the second if he hopes to hog all the glory when he’s proved right.
I see, now when it’s Democrats’ policy, everything is upfront and done for the finest motives. Sorry not buying.
The Democrats are in the business of creating a voting record for their opponents in anticipation of 2008. And they’d be mad not to. The tactic is golden. They can appear hand on heart before the public and declaim “We did our best to bring that war to a close. But look who stopped us. Look who never lifted a finger for your interest and now, now wants your vote, the cheek of it.”
Whether or not this is the precise chapter and verse of the tactic, the Democrats have the GOP by the seams and plan to tear it apart in the next months. It will be a constant dilemma: Loyally support your President, or work on your chances for 2008?
The question is one of who can better sell their spin. Can Bushco sell their “Congress won’t support the troops” spin or can the Dems can sell their “we tried to give the troops $100 billion, and Bush vetoed it” spin better? Bushco are very good at spin. Bushco’s spin is a lie, but that doesn’t matter. On the other hand, the Dems’ spin is almost simple enough that it might get across, but they have a poor record of being able to prevail against Bushco’s spin machine.
Ravenman your 9% figure only matters to the extent that the electorate will come down hard on whoever they perceive not to be supporting the troops. So if the Dems can sell their message, it’s Bush who has to worry about that figure.
The Republicans have gotten away with a lot less ground to stand on and a lot more transparent bullshit than that. Yes. I think the Dems should keep stating like a broken record that they are trying to fund the troops but that Bush won’t accept the funding.
I’m just kind of astounded that a number of folks here see a political upside to an impasse that leaves troops without bullets, body armor, gasoline, and other necessities.
Why do you think it is that Cheney has been trying to bait Democrats into cutting funds for the war? Seriously, aside from being a bad idea on the merits, it would play right into the Republican trap that has been set for months now.
The Democrats are not cutting funding. the Democrats are trying to RAISE funding. Bush wants to fuck the troops by cockblocking the money that the Dems are desperately trying to get to the troops in field. Bush is doing this because he wants them to stay there and keep dying rather then heeding the will of the people and ending this disastrous, futile war.
See how easy it is to spin this? The fact it’s essentially accurate is just gravy.
Unfortunately, it’s in the Dem’s interest for the war to go on for a long time. They can sit back and throw up their hands and blame Bush (and the many GOPers who support him) every time he rejects the time tables that a majority of the U.S. electorate wants.
I really think there will be a grand total of about 100 people in the entire US who would fall for that spin while troops would be going without ammunition and bandages. It is an embarrassingly lame soundbite, that I think makes “I voted for the funding before I voted against it” seem like the work of James Carville. And it simply isn’t accurate, either.
Congress has the power of the purse. It controls how the spending bills are written, and, of course, the President has the choice to approve or veto them. But that does not change the fact that Congress can write any bill any way it wants. To even attempt to say that Congress would be blameless in denying funding for the troops all because of the big bad White House simply doesn’t hold water, either rhetorically or constitutionally.
I’m probably a bit thick. Can you explain to me why it is obvious that passing a bill with 100 billion in funding in it is “denying funding”? I understand how Bush can spin it that way, but I can’t see how it is obviously true.
I second this, Ravenman. The statement that Congress is trying to increase funding rather than cut is not spin, it’s factually accurate. The statement that Congress is trying to cut funding is complete bullshit spin, yet you seem to think that telling the truth is spinning and that the public won’t fall for it.
It’s happened often enough before to be regarded as unremarkable if it occurs again. But yeah, the current atmopshere may not be amicable to a a lie of this magnitude. I guess we’ll find out.
I do think you’re missing one piece of the puzzle here. By ignoring the timetable requirement, you’re setting this over-simplified message up for attack.
I see it more as: By vetoing the bill because of the timetable, Bush has effectively said that he cares more about keeping the troops in Iraq than keeping them funded.
The real question with respect to ‘playing politics’ is, are they elevating their political prospects above the good of the country? I don’t see that here.
They’re trying to end the war, which it is an uphill battle.
Are they taking advantage of that battle to make hay politically? Sure. Are they doing harm to the cause of ending the war by doing so? I don’t see it.
I presume this was facetious, because there’s no reason why anyone should loyally support the Fuckup-in-Chief.
Under the scenario DtC set out, it would be pretty clear that the President and Congress would be at an impasse: Bush would veto anything with withdrawal dates in it, and Congress wouldn’t pass a bill if it didn’t have withdrawal dates. Therefore, the political process (neither the President nor Congress) would be a stalemate, the result of which is denying funds to the troops. That the political process could deny funds for the war, and yet some expect Congress to remain blameless is simply a political pipe dream in my view.
I suppose I could have stated it clear by writing in my previous post, “To even attempt to say that Congress would be above blame for its role denying funding for the troops all because of the big bad White House simply doesn’t hold water, either rhetorically or constitutionally.”
Under this scenario, Congress would be the body that would be refusing to negotiate. Bush could call as many meetings at the White House as he wanted, saying, “Americans all agree our troops need funding. There’s provisions of this bill I oppose. I want to negotiate with Congress, but they aren’t acting in good faith. They’d rather use the troops as pawns, risking their lives in the process, because some Congressional leaders disagree with me about what to do in Iraq. I’m willing to sit and work out a compromise, and I hope Congress would work with me in the same spirit.” Which is pretty much what he’s laying the groundwork for right now.
I think that spin is about a million times more effective than “Its BUSH, not Congress with its power of the purse, who is denying funds for the troops!” Congress would lose the debate in an instant. Danger danger, Democrats, making a calculated decision to place a purely political victory over funding for the troops is exactly what the White House is hoping.
And let’s remember that the timetable in this appropriations bill is NOT binding. The dates in the bill are basically non-binding goals, not deadlines. So you’re risking political suicide for what, exactly?
I still don’t understand how doing what the majority of the citizenry wants done (timetables for withdrawal) is political suicide…note that we are not talking about immediate withdrawal and defunding here.
Playing a game of chicken in which the welfare of the troops is jeopardized is political suicide – and that is, in my view, exactly what DtC is proposing. If you asked the American public which they would prefer, a non-binding goal for troop withdrawal or funding for the troops, they’d probably say “both.” If pressed to choose one, are you so certain they’d choose the former over the latter?
Again, this is not the only showdown the Congress will have with the President on Iraq. There’s at least three more bills this year that will have Iraq provisions put on them, and odds are that if Dems avoid shooting themselves in the foot by thinking that Congress will get off scot-free should the troops run out of funds, the number of votes for their Iraq proposals is only going to grow throughout the year.
Uhhhh, maybe you missed the headlines, but when Bush met with Pelosi and Reid yesterday he assigned his chief of staff to meet with Democratic leaders to try to negotiate a new bill. They are supposed to start meeting today. So yes, Bush is offering to negotiate; and yes, he probably won’t compromise on his “no timetable” view. You seem to be saying that Congress should not negotiate at all. That’s not a good message, especially when funding for the troops is on the line.
If he won’t compromise on a time table then he won’t compromise. That’s the only issue. There’s nothing else to negotiate. He’s offering nothing. The primary reason the Dems were given Congress in the first place was to end the war. If they won’t do that then what what good are they?