If you have any doubts as to the title reference, kindly bugger off. This is not for you.
The parenthetical question mark affords the opportunity for the opinion that such is not the case, that some brilliant tactical maneuver is afoot, or somesuch.
The question posed is, in essence, WTF? I took the liberty of Pitting this thread in the sure knowledge that tempers will fray, mine already has. Calm and civil discourse is not thereby discouraged, merely regarded as unlikely.
So, ladies and gentlething, pals and gals…what the fuck?
I have mixed feelings. I’ve been wanting a timeframe for getting the fuck out of Iraq for years, but it’s unclear to me that the Dems had much choice. Knowing that Bush would just veto any bill with a timetable in it, and that they couldn’t override a veto, maybe the responsible thing to do was blink and at least make sure the troops don’t go unfunded. I was happy to see the Dems take over both housed of Congress last year, but I had no illusions that there were any easy ways out of Iraq. But that’s just my own take, and I can see where others might (justifiably) be very pissed.
And I think that when the next chance comes up (in September) they might very well be able to override a veto. I’d say better than 50/50.
It’s stupid, stupid, stupid. By initially tying funding to a withdrawal timetable they gave the Republicans all the ammo they need to paint them as weak on defense anyway. Now, by capitulating to the President they demostrate that they’re spineless. Plus they’ve linked it to the minimum wage increase, making it hard to vote against on principle. Disgusting.
They need to act like a political party that actually wants to run the country and carry out the will of the voters. If they had stood firm, eventually GW Bush would have had to blink: he cannot do anything in the long run without Congressional appropriations.
I think they had several choices. They could have passed a ‘clean’ bill funding the war through July (and then pass the original bill again in July). They could have taken a vote in the Senate on a bill with timetables, and if it failed due to GOP defections (according to Jerome Armstrong of MyDD, that was the problem - Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) weren’t going to vote for timelines this time), that would have (a) exposed them as being only sometime opponents of the war, and (b) explained why the Dems had to back down.
If you’re prepared to put money on that, I’ll put money on the other side of the question.
I really doubt that we’ll see the forecasted mass GOP defections in September, no matter what happens on the ground between now and then. Waiting for the GOP moderates has become more tedious and fruitless than waiting for Godot.
Finally, the whole veto override thing has been a red herring all along. The President needs Congress to affirmatively act to fund his war. Congressional Dems should be saying, “The voters put us back in charge to get us out of Iraq. We are passing bills that will fully fund our withdrawal. Congress has the authority to decide whether America should be at war, and this goes hand in hand with Congress’ authority to fund a war. We’re heeding the American people, who want us out, and that’s what we’re funding. If George Bush wants to stay in Iraq, he’s going to have to figure out on his own where to get the money, because we’re not funding that. The President doesn’t rule unilaterally, and he can’t keep us at war unilaterally.”
Instead, they’re backing down in the face of Mr. 34%.
The “long run” question depends on your assessment of his motives. I don’t think he is thinking “long run” (as in limp to the finish line of this term and hand this shitball over to the next poor schmuck…) Trying to peer into his mind is like trying to read tea leaves in a toilet bowl, but I think he believes it, he truly believes that his strategery is a stroke of geo-political brilliance, the turner is about to be corned, hopeful signs abound, and those dark clouds gathering mean its about to rain ponies.
Of course, the next six months will be crucial…
So, in his view, he only need hang on grimly until the Day of Jubilee, and rub his hands in glee as his approval rating tops 110%. Even faced with full scale mutiny, all he needs do is shuffle some funds around until The Day, then it won’t matter, he can begin working on his first speech coyly rejecting any attempt to make him President for Life, and settling for a fifth head on Mt. Rushmore.
I agree with the first sentence, but I’m not sure about the second. Playing chicken with the funding for an active military operation is a dangerous game. I’m not so sure that Bush wouldn’t jump at the chance to stand firm and let funding lapse, just so he could have someone to point a finger to when things go even more to shit. He’s not the one who didn’t support the troops after all, he’s just sticking to his principles.
I think the Democrats just need to keep applying the pressure and vocally pushing for an end to the war – the more the public sees them as its consistent advocate in getting the country out of Iraq, it will be a lot harder for Bush and the Republicans to muddy the waters by playing the partisan smear game. Bush may stick to his guns until 2008, but the rest of the party will buckle in face of mounting public outcry.
Yep. The Dems showed us their true colors on this one. Keith Olbermann nailed it yesterday. The blogs are all on fire…
If Bush would somehow keep the troops in Iraq after the Dems cut the funds that would be the end of his presidency. Impeachment hearings would begin immediately. Of course, this would require the Congress to not be criminally negligent.
It seems pretty clear to me that the Dems bought the war. Nothing will change in September as far as I can see. A lot of Dems seem fine with occupying Iraq for the foreseeable future. The only hope of getting out of Iraq is voting for a candidate who has stated flat out that he would withdraw all troops. To my knowledge, the only ‘mainstream’ candidate to say that is Edwards (Oh Kucinich, why couldn’t you have been born a 6 foot tall square jawed hunk?).
BTW, the GOP and the MSM will always smear the Democrats and the left as weak on defense, cowards, terrorist sympathizers, etc. Have you been paying attention the last 30 years? Or just the last 6 in particular? It doesn’t matter if the target is a certified war hero, general, NATO commander, etc. Anyone who isn’t a Republican will be painted as a traitor.
I didn’t mean that literally. Of course they had plenty of choices. My preference would be for them to have revoked the AUMF before they tried to cut off funding. I don’t think the president has the power to veto something like that, since the constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to declare and (one would have to assume) to undeclare war. Take it to the SCOTUS if need be. Don’t link funding of troops to an end in the war.
No, I’m not confident enough that the spread is much more than 50/50. It’s more a “gun to my head” kind of thing-- if I **had **to bet, I’d bet on defections.
This presumes that Bush will act the way a rational person acts when confronted with an immovable object. I think the Dems came to the scary conclusion that Bush is entirely capable of not blinking ever, even if that meant letting the money run out and stranding the troops without bullets, just to avoid the appearance of capitulating to liberals.
After the veto, they should have just moved on to other business and let the funding run out. Bush says “The Democrats are refusing to fund the troops!” Pelosi replies: “Oh no, we passed a funding bill. You’re the one who refused to sign it. You have two choices: sign the bill we passed or withdraw the troops immediately. Call us when you’re ready to sign.”
Instead, they folded like umbrellas. I think Pelosi and Reed should step down and make room for leaders with some fight in them.
He seemed kinda gloat-y in the press conference this morning…
When does this misbegotten son-of-a-whore bill go to conference, BTW? Any chance of a last-minute miracle? Maybe we could get John Williams to score some breakthrough music for it…
I agree with vibrotronica. Don’t like the bill? Fund it yourself.
Dems had the high ground, they passed a damn bill, the caved in terror when faced with an known dirtball that has 2/3 of the country against him, they are equally responsible for what’s happening in Iraq from this point forward.
Yes, how many U.S. soldiers, contractors, and personnel will die in the next four and a half months? Seems we’re averaging nearly 100 a month, 8-10 casualties per death. It’s all the Dems’ hands. I’d also usually be more concerned about Iraqis since there are a lot more of them but, well, they’re fucked no matter what we do.
The most infuriating aspect of watching this sordid circus is how so many of the Dems spouted out the GOP propaganda about how cutting funding wouldn’t be “supporting the troops.” As if they were going to be stranded in the desert, slowly running out of bullets. Everytime I saw that I wanted to kick in my TV screen…what the hell is wrong with these people? Are they doing this on purpose? Are they stupid?
With Dems like that, who needs the GOP?
I disagree with the posters saying we should’ve moved on to other business. Every couple weeks for several months the headlines should’ve been “Bush vetoes funding with timeline again.”
I’m not so sanguine as the blogger you quote, Archive Guy. If the Dems don’t have the ability to frame it as a “bring our sons and daughters out of harm’s way” debate now, what reason is there to suppose they’ll be able to frame it as a “Pubbies support endless war and blank checks” debate in a year?
That’s what keeps me from getting too upset here. The public is against the war and wants the troops out soon, but doesn’t support de-funding. That’s not to say the Democrats shouldn’t try to stand up and fight - but I doubt they would win if they did, and I doubt the public would have that much patience with Congress.