"When the disembodied voice on C-SPAN calls you pussies . . .

[tugmoose]

. . . , you're probably pussies." - Jon Stewart, the Daily Show, on congressional Democrats abandoning timelines in Iraq War funding bill.

 

 

Some think the Dems will come back from holiday break with newly attached balls and get the impeachment ball rolling. I'm not seeing it, but maybe they'll surprise me.

[mountain bed]

As much as I hate to say it, you gotta admit that by substituting the word 'surrender date' for 'timelines' the Repubs knocked one out of the park.

[anodyne]

i hope you wrote your congressional representation. i sent one to my rep, to the senator i worked to help elect (the other is a moderate bushie who would have voted for dropping iranian babies from bombers on sadaam's palace) as well as one to bernie sanders for keepin it the fuck real. that's re-al, two syllables. in fact, that link for the chart in the gas thread came from sanders' website.

[mountain bed]

i hope you wrote your congressional representation. i sent one to my rep, to the senator i worked to help elect (the other is a moderate bushie who would have voted for dropping iranian babies from bombers on sadaam's palace) as well as one to bernie sanders for keepin it the fuck real. that's re-al, two syllables. in fact, that link for the chart in the gas thread came from sanders' website.

I'm so embarrassed by my Rep I don't even want to talk about him.

 

Sherrod Brown is a good guy. Consider yourself lucky.

 

So is Bernie.

 

I just think the Dems knew there was no way they were gonna get to 67. And cutting off funds would be political suicide. Really, I'm just so disappointed though.

[MrRain422]

But it wouldn't be political suicide if they hadn't allowed the White House to frame the debate to begin with. The congressional Democrats allowed their opposition to equate de-funding the war with abandoning the troops. If they'd done a better job of explaining that de-funding the war would not in fact leave the troops in the battlefield with no ammunition, but would rather simply bring the troops home (which is the reality of it), then they could have done so without the fear of such dire political repercussions. This was a failure in rhetorical device, which quite frankly is pathetic at this point.

[mountain bed]

But it wouldn't be political suicide if they hadn't allowed the White House to frame the debate to begin with. The congressional Democrats allowed their opposition to equate de-funding the war with abandoning the troops. If they'd done a better job of explaining that de-funding the war would not in fact leave the troops in the battlefield with no ammunition, but would rather simply bring the troops home (which is the reality of it), then they could have done so without the fear of such dire political repercussions. This was a failure in rhetorical device, which quite frankly is pathetic at this point.

You're absolutely right, but the Republicans are such masters of fear-mongering. They really got that shit down. You know, 'embolden the enemy', 'they'll follow us home', etc., etc..

 

I know we see it for what it is, but it evidently works. I just don't know how to counter that rhetoric...9/11 (unfortunately) really seems to have given the fear freaks a HUGE advantage in framing issues regarding the war, national security, and the like.

[anodyne]

and they looked like choads in that they passed a bill, bush refused and they allowed that refusal to be considered legitimate/appropriate. they didn't need to override the veto, but play better politics in framing the issue as bush's refusal to fund the troops responsibly. no one did.

 

 

sherrod brown is a great guy and an awesome congressman. i hope he doesn't forget he has a pair now that he's sitting at the big kid table. that guy gives me hope for this democracy, and i'm already bitter, cynical and jaded. if he becomes a choad, i don't know what i'll be. a choad, i guess.

[tugmoose]

One thing I hope Washington is realizing is that people are getting very angry. First the 06 elections, then George Tenet, now this. There is a foul mood rising out there that's not gonna accept the same old shit. Safe ain't safe anymore, for either side.

 

 

Read this by Andrew Sullivan today:

 

The president's press conference last week left me at a loss for words. Spluttering is not a real response. But how else to respond to a man who has spawned a catastrophe in the Middle East and then behaves as if it's his critics who are out of touch with reality? Then we get this latest news about pre-war intel from the WaPo and the dreadful but obvious reality in the NYT that every road ahead in Iraq - staying or leaving, surging or redeploying - is full of death, terror and chaos. The light at the end of this tunnel is hard to glimpse. But Bush is still proudly digging the tunnel.

 

What can one say? Well: we can say this at least. The president is right that al Qaeda remains a terrible threat to Americans. He is right to insist on this. But one core reason he is right is because he has been in the White House for the last six years. Al Qaeda surely never had a more helpful man in such a powerful place. After over six years of this presidency, Bin Laden is still at large. Five and a half years after Bin Laden's religious tools murdered 3,000 innocents, this president still cannot find or capture or kill him. Five and a half years after that dreadful day, al Qaeda's reach in the Middle East is more extensive than ever, centered in Iraq, where it was barely existent before the war. Over four years after invading Iraq, the security situation there is as grave as it has ever been. Tens of thousands of innocents have been added to the three thousand murdered on 9/11 - many of them unspeakably tortured and murdered by death squads or Islamist cells empowered by Bush's jaw-dropping negligence. Over three thousand young Americans have died in order to give al Qaeda this victory and this new platform.

 

Here is Bush's gift to the victims of 9/11: two new al Qaeda safe havens - in Anbar and in Pakistan. He gave Zarqawi a second career, by refusing to kill him when had a clear shot in 2003, and then allowing him to run rampant across Iraq for several years. Islamists, moreover, are far closer now to getting their hands on WMDs than they were when Bush became president - the very casus belli I foolishly bought to go to war with Saddam. Given the financial boost al Qaeda has gotten from the Iraq invasion, the massive propaganda coup they have won by Bush's authorization of torture, and the triumph of Iran as a consequence of Bush's non-existent "strategy", isn't it simply a fact that Bush is the best thing to happen to al Qaeda since its founding? Is not the record now clear that, whatever their intentions, Bush and Cheney have actually advanced the day when Islamist terrorists will kill and murder more Americans?

 

If a Democrat had been responsible for endangering America in this fashion, the Republicans would have impeached him by now. If a Democrat had bungled a war as obviously as this president - a war, moreover, that he has described as an existential struggle for our survival - the Republicans would long ago have Carterized him. Look how the Israelis have held Olmert accountable for his feckless war in Lebanon. Compared to Bush, Olmert is Churchill. If Bush's record in this war is "offense," then the only sane response is: so was the charge of the light brigade.

 

Just to anger up the blood some more, it's now clear, thanks to the latest Congressional report, that this president was warned starkly about the dangers of "a surge of political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups" as a result of an invasion of Iraq. He was told that Iraq was "largely bereft of the social underpinnings" for democracy. He was explicitly informed that there was "a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other unless an occupying force prevented them from doing so." And yet he still sent a pathetically insufficient occupation force in 2003 - and refused to increase it for three years of growing chaos and mayhem. Even if you excuse the original recklessness, the persistence in it - until our current point of no return - is and was criminal negligence - a callous disregard for your security and mine.

 

The gravity of the mistake this country made in 2004 by re-electing al Qaeda's best bet is only now sinking in as deep as it should. I fear, however, that we have yet to experience the full and terrifying consequences of that historic mistake.

[WilcoFan]

Part of the problem here is that some guy named Andrew Sullivan is saying this on some site called The Atlantic. Nobody else is really saying this.

 

The Bush administration has finally taken it to the next level: complete and utter control of the media

 

I'm not convinced that the democratic leadership believes they have anything to gain by bucking the status quo. They want big change but will most likely not upset the apple cart to get it.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

But it wouldn't be political suicide if they hadn't allowed the White House to frame the debate to begin with. The congressional Democrats allowed their opposition to equate de-funding the war with abandoning the troops. If they'd done a better job of explaining that de-funding the war would not in fact leave the troops in the battlefield with no ammunition, but would rather simply bring the troops home (which is the reality of it), then they could have done so without the fear of such dire political repercussions. This was a failure in rhetorical device, which quite frankly is pathetic at this point.

It's pretty embarassing that this not-so-subtle distinction is hard to make in our political climate.

[anodyne]

i got my form letter back from my senator's staffers, which did not even really address my point (which admittedly was somewhat nuanced). basically - i hate the war but i love the warrior.

 

Orig. note:

Dear Sen. Brown

I am disappointed in your vote to continue funding George Bush's war without accountability. I understand the complexities of how congress actually works and know that sometimes it is necessary to vote for a bill that you oppose, but the stakes are too high to play politics with this war. The fact the war is funded outside of the budget through "emergency" supplementals is problematic enough, but to cave from a real withdraw timeline to suggested benchmarks is beyond watered-down.

 

I was an active campaigner for you in 2006, in part because you were my Representative in the 13th and always did a wonderful job and partly because Mike DeWine did not reflect my progressive values. I still have your campaign sticker on my car because your win brought so much hope for an end to the war, an increase in education funding and my having an advocate on other important issues. In this campaign, you made a point to show how DeWine was a rubber stamp for the Bush administration. Please Sen. Brown, please stand up for what is right. The bill passed to fund the war with a timeline was the right thing to do. If the president would not sign it, that's where the political theater should take place. Voting for a lesser bill so that the troops do not suffer more is a capitulation. The onus was on the president in this funding fight.

 

Might I suggest a proposal to actually budget for the war when we know there is no end in sight rather than passing endless supplementals? If the president wants to keep this open-ended conflict open for contractors like Blackwater and KBR, it should be in the budget. This war was one of the greatest blunders in American history and it must end immediately. To do so, we need to be resolute, principled, creative and brave. Please don't forget your progressive, Wellstonian populism when the next vote for funding this war comes around. Unfortunately, vote 181 will certainly not be the last vote for funding our war contractors and soldiers.

 

Sincerely -

Matt *****

 

 

 

response:

Dear Matt:

 

Thank you for expressing your views on the FY 2007 emergency Defense supplemental and the U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

 

I have been a long and consistent opponent of the war in Iraq. The Iraq civil war requires a political solution and I have made clear again and again that I want to redeploy our troops in a safe manner as soon as possible.

 

So long as the President remains entrenched in a strategy of continuing this war indefinitely and has sufficient strength in Congress, that redeployment cannot take place. Today there are not enough Senators who will vote to bring our troops home.

 

My vote in favor of the Emergency Defense Supplemental was to provide the support

[tugmoose]

Two words: Nixon Now.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I think the Senator's response is actually a pretty good one. Unfortunately, there is not overwhelming support in Congress for the Democrats' strategy. As mountainbed said, cutting off funds would be political suicide.

 

It makes them look ineffectual, but at least in 2008 they can say, "We tried to stop funding this war," and the Republicans won't be able to effectively say, "You Defeatocrats refused to give our troops the funding they needed." It's sad, but DC is one cynical fucking town.

[WilcoFan]

Oh one more slightly off topic note:

 

I watched the local news on Memorial Day this past Monday... Not 1 mention of the Iraq war by name. Just a couple of sweet stories about old WWII vets weeping at the new WWII memorial in DC. Pathetic.

[Tweedling]

I voted against the Iraq invasion and will continue to work to build support for redeployment until our troops come home.

 

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown

 

I could not find where he voted "against" the Iraq invasion.........

 

hup....nevermind