Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Color me shocked

"Democrats Drop Troop Pullout Dates From Iraq Bill"

“We don’t have a veto-proof Congress,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader.

Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the House Democratic majority leader, said the new bill was still being assembled, but he acknowledged the political reality facing Democrats. “The president has made it very clear that he is not going to sign timelines,” said Mr. Hoyer. “We can’t pass timelines over his veto.”

The concession to the president was proving so difficult for the Democratic leadership that by this afternoon, the lawmakers had not yet publicly acknowledged that the timelines would disappear. House Democrats were preparing to advance two separate measures, to enable antiwar lawmakers to support popular domestic spending but not the money for the war. House Democrats were to review the proposal later this evening, but lawmakers were already predicting that many would not support the war spending.

Under the new plan approved by Democratic leaders, Congress would send Mr. Bush the money for the war and include a series of benchmarks that attracted 52 votes in the Senate last week. The Iraqi government could lose some foreign aid if it fails to show sufficient progress but the president would be given the authority to suspend any penalties.

...The Democratic leaders’ concession infuriated one of their own, Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, who failed last week in his attempt to win passage of a measure that would have cut off money for the war next spring.

“I cannot support a bill that contains nothing more than toothless benchmarks and that allows the president to continue what may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation’s history,” he said. “There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action. Congress should have stood strong, acknowledged the will of the American people, and insisted on a bill requiring a real change of course in Iraq.”


Emily said...

Doesn't anybody know what a fucking filibuster is anymore?

Alon Levy said...

I'm pretty sure if it comes to a standstill due to a filibuster, Bush can get a continuing resolution that lets him do whatever he wants in Iraq.

Eli said...

The really cool part will be in September, when the Republicans get to play the Wise Statesmen and pronounce that the Surge is DOA, and the war needs to end.

Guess who end up being the war-ending heroes going into the 2008 elections?

This is, of course, assuming that they have the sense to grab that golden opportunity, which is not exactly a given.

belledame222 said...

I'm fairly certain they don't/won't. I've been wrong before, christ knows. sure would be great if -someone- did.

of course, if they actually ended the war before the election, that means that they -won't- be handing it off to a hapless (possibly) Democrat who can get damned for either prolonging it, or pulling out and then whatever bad thing happens to Americans transpires after that will be blamed on it.

not to mention how many people stand to profit in various ways from it continuing.

or Bush's own ego; who says he'll ever admit to a mistake?

no, they won't give it up; it's the gift that keeps on giving.

R. Mildred said...

not to mention how many people stand to profit in various ways from it continuing.

I dunno, remember that halliburton has all the contracts in New Orleans AND all the contracts for the immigrant detention centers AND they've stirred up enough shit that they can move out and still make a shit load of money selling arms to everyone like they did back in the 80's.

And the whole point of the Iraq oil fields is not to actually get oil out of them but to stop other people from being able to get oil out of them (it's a supply/demand thing), which the civil war achieves nicely - the same goes for afghanistan.

They stay, they make money, they leave, they make money.

I think the bigger point is which is it easier for them to do more than anything, unless they plan to go after Iran as well.

Which is the big question mark, I find myself unwillingly hoping, against all common sense, that they're not that fucking stupid and crazy.

I'm pretty sure if it comes to a standstill due to a filibuster, Bush can get a continuing resolution that lets him do whatever he wants in Iraq.

Yeah but that's different from now... how exactly? They just let him do what ever the hell he wants so... It's something which allows them to look like they're doing something, which allows them to rally Teh Base, which should help them in the elections.

Politics is all image, and the dems don't seem to even grasp that simple fucking point that looking like you're doing something is AS GOOD AS actually doing something as far as the elections go.

It sucks for Iraqis, and by "sucks" I mean that people get hteir arms and legs blown off and their families killed and raped by the death squads, but the basic political realities is that the dems don't actually lose anything as far as their real objectives go, so why oh why oh why oh why...

Jay said...

I can't say I'm all that surprised. Many democrats (I'm assuming)have constituents who earn their living off the war industry.

They can't exactly piss them off, so they posture for the white, rich folks who give money, who really also wanted to go to war, too, all those years ago. But now, you know, they feel really bad about those Irackeys getting killed, so maybe we should adopt the babies!

I wish the sixties would return for one year in this country....and I was only 6 at the end of 1969...

belledame222 said...

I think the bigger point is which is it easier for them to do more than anything

Yeah, I think you're right about that.

One would hope that launching a fresh blitz in Iran would fall into the category of "too much trouble," but as you note, with these people...you can't take anything for granted.

drydock said...

The Vietnam war ended for 3 reasons IMO.
1. Vietnamese resistance.
2. Social unrest domestically.
3. GI rebellion.

In Iraq none of these conditions exist:
1. The Iraqi resistance has mostly been focused on sectarian killing of Shiites, which has helped bring the country to a civil war.
2. Some angry liberals and a dissatified majority will not get the US military out of the most important energy region of the palnet.
3. There is a reason why there is no draft. BY the end of the Vietnam there was mass desertion, large scale insubordination, fraggings, ect... The US military understands that lesson.

The liberals who think getting some democrats elected will end the military adventure in Iraq are fooling themselves.

Alon Levy said...

The US has been in Iraq for four years. In Vietnam, the corresponding point would be in 1968, when the draft riots only started and only a minority of angry liberals wanted to get out.