Clinton voted NO.
80-14. Damn, much higher margin than I thought there might be.
…and, even though they’re allegedly the ones in power, the Dems prove once again that as long as the other side can frame the debate (and you lack the balls to even attempt to reframe it) you may as well be in the minority.
-Joe
It’s hard to tell what motivated Clinton and Obama. They would have no reason to vote yes, even if they wanted it to pass-- they knew their votes weren’t needed.
Petreaeus’ report isn’t going to do jack shit. There are too many ways to delay such a report, and if it is released on time either it will go through the White House filtering system so that it says exactly what they want it to say, some other manufactured event will happen at the same time to divert attention, or both.
It really doesn’t matter what it says; it either matches the public perception, or it doesn’t. If the public sentiment against the war continues to grow, the Petraeus report will either confirm it, or it will be so obviously a fabrication, the public will reject it. The American public has an enormous capacity to swallow bullshit, but there is a point at which they say no more. I believe that will be in September, and even Republican candidates will be demanding a “surrender date”.
How many fucking times have we heard “The public may have put up with a lot of bullshit, but there’s no way in hell they will stand for this!!” over the last few years?
So what is your point? There is no point in arguing, we’re fucked nine ways to Sunday no matter what?
No, I’m saying that sitting back and waiting for that report to come out because it will somehow mobilize the public and cause them to throw the bums out is just what the Administration wants you to do. By the time that report arrives, there will be so many mini-scandals that the American public will be all “revolted” out, and the only response you’ll get is "It’s just another Bush bashing thread. Don’t you Dems have anything better to do? :rolleyes: "
Don’t get me wrong, I wish they had voted down this bill. But it’s a done deal now. And saying it is now more the fault of the Dems than Bush is just silly. We will fight again another day. And I do believe we will win.
So, we will, ah, overcome? Some day?
Not by sitting on our asses and waiting for the tools to do so to fall into our laps. It’s best we pretend that the Petraeus report will never happen, and actively look for a more immediate solution. If the report comes out, and if it isn’t delayed, and if it isn’t WhiteHousewashed, and if the Republican plan to “mini-scandal” the public into not giving a shit anymore doesn’t come off, we may be able to use this report as icing on the cake. In the meantime, we’ve got to bake that cake.
What do you realistically propose?
If the people lead, the leaders will follow. And the people are way out ahead on this one. Wonk on this: Hilary voted against it. You can bet it was on the advice of one of the smartest politicians/horndogs evah. If Wily Bill thought there was any advantage in being “centrist” on this issue, he would have told her so, it was looking like she was angling for that, but has now thrown it over. Its gonna be a fight between her, Obama, and Pretty Johnny over who is most “anti-war”.
Anyway, gotta go check if my old gas mask is still functional. (sigh)
Pick one fucking scandal at a time, and hit it from all angles at full force. The White House is going to have these mini diversionary screw-ups just to make us start over again with a new batch of indignation, and we’ve got to resist. If we are fighting on all fronts at the same time, we’ll do about as well as the Germans did in WWII.
PRESIDENT BUSH: “Mr. <insertnamehere> has done nothing wrong. He has my complete confidence. This investigation is just political theater, and is sending the wrong message to our enemies in the War on Terror.” [lather, rinse, repeat]
It’s like a presidential “King’s X”, which, once uttered, renders any political attack moot.
I think it time to break out the torches and pitchforks.
As much as it grieves me to disagree with Elucidator, who is not only pretty astute but has read and memorized most of Mark Twain and is not above occasionally stealing a quip, I must. Giving the President the off-budget emergency spending authorization he petulantly demands instead of turning it into a decisive battle is no act of memorable political courage but is an act calculated to position the Democratic Party to make some real changes in this country (or more correctly to position the Democratic Party to defend and preserve the whole body of progressive social legislation enacted over the past 70 years – from Social Security and the progressive income tax to the Voting Rights Act and Medicare). Legislatively and judicially the Republican Party has been hostile to all those things and ever since the so-called Contract with America has been actively engaged in attempting to reverse them through legislation and through the courts. In short, there is something going on here that is a lot bigger than a chance to stop a foolish foreign adventure.
In a very short time the occupation of Iraq will collapse into a civil war – and that is the best we can hope for, a low grade civil war that simmers and bubbles on for years without drawing the neighboring states into it. Once that happens, and it surely will happen, the persuasive political slogan will be “Who lost Iraq” – just as the persuasive slogan in the years following WWII was “Who lost China.” Already we are seeing “stab in the back” propaganda reminiscent of political agitation in Germany in the inter-war years. The Democratic Party can not work to preserve the advances made since the New Deal if it is encumbered with the notion that it was responsible for the loss of Iraq. Please note that the mere fact that, like China, Iraq was a goner from Day One makes no difference in the ability of the demagogues and propagandists to persuade just enough of the electorate to keep the party of reaction in power.
Under the particular circumstances and with the risks inherent in cutting off funding the only valid course open to the Democrats is to string the President and his handlers enough rope to hang themselves and trust that they will effectively dangle themselves from some lamppost on Constitution Avenue before the next national election.
The real dilemma will come if the situation in Iraq has not gone down the toilet come this fall. If the situation is a pretty much unchanged then someone is going to have to suck it up and do something. For the time being it is necessary to reluctantly give the President what he demands and then stick it in his ear. There is too much riding on this to allow our judgement to be overly influenced by creeping John Wayneism. We Democrats have got to pick our fights. The fight my friend urges on us is one that we may win but only at the risk of unacceptable future cost.
Except that the facts of the situation in Iraq are not all that relevant to the political debate here in the US. The Goppers are still largely successful in portraying our efforts there as both a liberation/democratization movement and as the front line in The War on Terra. The civil war, the partitioning, the chaos aren’t so obviously distinguishable from that as to keep that spin from working.
And there isn’t much reason to think that the remaining supporters, or Bush himself, can be shocked into concluding otherwise by anything that might happen before September. Even then, it will still be possible, as it always has, to cherry-pick some fringe detail as a “sign of progress” while refusing to consider the overall situation, or the possibility that the Terrists might not come over here to attack our children, as Commander Guy told us today. It won’t “go down the toilet” to a degree distinguishable from the current situation - how could it? It isn’t down the toilet now?
No, the Dems were put in power primarily for the purpose of ending this damned folly. There will never be a better time to do it than now. Even a September withdrawal means a few hundred more dead soldiers and a few thousand more casualties, both physical and mental. Continuing a failure in the hope not to be blamed for it is just silly, and the polls showing Congress’ approvals on the same level as Bush’s show that, if it really is a strategy, it won’t even work.
The time to “suck it up and do something” is now. The time to get outside the Beltway Bubble, stop paying attention to David Broder et al., and do the job they were hired to do is now. The numerous Dem freshmen, in addition to Pelosi and perhaps Reid, who’ve said as much, who haven’t spent enough time in the bubble to forget it, is encouraging.
There’s no such grand political strategy as you’re hoping for, SG. It’s only lack of spine.
I get where you are coming from, SG, but:
1/ if the Dems win the next election, and if the war is still going on at that time, then they will be saddled with the options of being the quitters who lost Iraq, or the warmongers who stayed in it.
2/ the situation in Iraq has already gone down the toilet. It has only not done so in the widely believed narrative maintained by Bushco. Experience to date is that it doesn’t matter how far into the toilet it goes, Bushco will be able to maintain that narrative, at least as well as they are doing now. Consequently, there will *never * come a point at which Bushco will hang themselves. To do so would not fit with their narrative. They are *winning * in that narrative, and to the extent they are not winning, it is and always will be because others are preventing them from fighting the war hard enough.
As the lesser of two evils, I think that the Dems should try to stop the war on Bushco’s watch. Sure, that will cause them to be labelled “the party that lost us the war” in some quarters, but they are going to cop that one way or another anyway.
At least by stopping the war through Congress now, the Dems have the opportunity to build up their own narrative: we stood up to a rogue president to stop him killing our boys and girls in an unnecessary war. Of course, that would take leadership and balls, which the Dems consistently lack.
The Dems doing what they are currently doing plays nicely into the Bush narrative: “the Dems are not fit to run this country because they are a bunch of flip flopping pussies. Hell, they’re such pussies they won’t even stand up to me, even when they’ve been given a mandate to do so: imagine how useless they’d be at fighting the ter’ists?”
(Note to self: apparently, *Readers Digest * does, at least occasionally, publish some Mark Twain. Or the AARP Newsletter, one or the other. Rats.)
We already know what lies are to be told, we’ve already heard them from a generation past. About how we would surely have won in Viet Nam, if only the wussy liberals hadn’t etc. etc. etc. If not those lies, a different set of lies. Being lies, one set is as good as another, it hardly matters. If they aren’t busy talking about our treason, they’ll talk about our atheism, they’ll talk about our tireless efforts to put gay pedophiles in charge of day care centers. What difference does it make which lies they choose? Why should we alter our course one iota, if only to respond to lies? If we do, won’t we be offering a surrender in advance? Shall we cringe? What, are we French?
When the Dems faced the civil rights question, they went ahead knowing…*knowing!..*that they would lose the advantage for a generation, they would have to wait patiently for the decrepit horror of bigotry to fade. Knowing that their political enemies would exploit the darker impulses for every drop of advantage, for years to come.
Are we less than they? Maybe so, but damned if I’ll admit it!
They tell the story, about the Armenian thief captured by the Caliph’s men, counterfeiting coins. He was brought before the Caliph, summarily judged and condemned. The Armenian cried out “Mercy, oh Caliph, have mercy and I will teach your horses to sing!”
The Caliph scowled. “This cannot be done, you lie to save your worhtless skin!”
“Six months, oh Caliph, I can teach them in six months! Surely, that is not so long for a wonder to brag about, to lord over your fellow kings! Who of them have horses that can sing?”
The Caliph considered, and gave the Armenian his six months. The mans brother in law upbraided him. “Fool!” he said “what will happen in six months after you cannot teach a horse to sing?”
“Perhaps the Caliph will die, and there will be an amnesty by his successor.”
“And if not?”
“Perhaps one of my other schemes will prosper, and I can bribe my way free.”
“None have yet, as is clear. If that doesn’t work?”
“Then, perhaps, I can teach a horse to sing.”
Of course, it requires a great deal more faith to be a radical than a liberal. Or, maybe, that’s just chutzpah. Whatever.