Smoke and Mirrors.
Or: Which cup has the pea under it?
By Moe Lane Posted in Congress | Giving Them the Business | Great Netroot Betrayal | Running like Scared Little Bunnies — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
All right, all right, all right, folks, step right up, and guess which cup has the pea under it. See the pea, watch the cups move, watch 'em move, here we go...
Budget battle hinges on Iraq
By ANDREW TAYLORWASHINGTON - Democrats controlling Congress sent the most explicit signals yet on Thursday that they are resigned to providing additional funding for the war in Iraq before Congress adjourns for the year.
Conceding that President Bush is in a strong position as Congress seeks to wrap up its work, Democrats are cooking up a pre-Christmas endgame that would deliver tens of billions of dollars for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan on conditions acceptable to the White House.
The Iraq funding would ultimately be attached by Bush's Senate GOP allies to a $500 billion-plus "omnibus" appropriations bill taking shape in closed-door talks. That's the only way they would let the measure advance through the Senate.
...
Hoyer acknowledged Democrats are considering a legislative two-step in which the House would initially pass the catch-all spending bill next week without Iraq funding attached. But the Senate would add the money — as the only way to avoid a GOP filibuster — and House Democrats would reluctantly accept it.
Via Captain's Quarters.
Yes, kids, that's right: if you are a Democrat who is against the war, the above can be read as a tacit admission by your own Party that they think that you're too stupid to notice when you've been stabbed in the back.
Oops, did I just type that out? Goofy me.
Read on.
Some minor observations:
a), The GOP is not actually going to stop pushing on the funding thing. I mean, why should we?
b), I hope all you netrooters reading this have saved your receipts. I say this because I don't think that the Party that you supposedly bought is the same one that was described on the box.
c), To those same netrooters: George W Bush is beating you. Again. The Establishment Democrats are letting him do that to you. Again. You will be given a pseudo-choice in your choice for President, only to have it given to the previously-anointed Establishment candidate. Again.
d), And she hates all of you, by the way. Even more so than the usual Establishment candidates do. Better start giving her lots and lots of money. She won't do anything for you if you do, but she might not do anything to you.
e), And last, I'd like to thank the entire liberal/progressive blogosphere for this wonderful Christmas present that you have helped give us: we'd offer back victory in Iraq in exchange, but I'm afraid that it doesn't go with anything in your collective wardrobes.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | And another one bites the dust. — Comments (10) »
Smoke and Mirrors. 21 Comments (0 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Total collapse on the AMT tax offset
Didn't they renew the Patriot act not too long ago?
Isn't the overall budget about three months past due and still a mess?
Can the Democratic controlled congress accomplish anything? Has there ever been as big a Congressional disaster as the Pelosi-Reid regime? What's going on with SCHIP these days- are they at all close to prying any R's away on that?
It's almost starting to get a little scary beating someone this bad on every issue.
I think most Dems are wondering why they chose Pelosi as leader over Harold Ford Jr. way back when.
Second, no one really expected the Dems to actually stare the President down on war funding did they?
A while back I compared this battle over war funding to something that happened at my frat when I was a Senior.
I continue to maintain that comparison. They picked a fight they had no intention of finishing. It boggles the mind what they hoped to accomplish. The Kos types aren't going to be happy with the old college try. Moderates are going to wonder why they threatened people's jobs for show. Everyone else is going to wonder what they are trying to do. They please no one with this.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
Second, no one really expected the Dems to actually stare the President down on war funding did they?
I didn't, but many here did when they heard Bush speaking after the congressional sweep in November. I thank the president for his unflinching clarity on these issues.
How many politician eschew politics for principle on any issue? This president does so on many.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
have our reasons and this is one of them. Back in the spring I didn't know what to think because no one really knew what this Congress was all about yet. I really didn't think they had the stomach to cut off funding while troops were in the field. I knew the President would hold his ground.
That was then though. What I am referring to is now. Now, we all knew that this was posturing. Again, in my frat, my frat brothers started a confrontation out of drunken posturing. It was a confrontation they had no intention of seeing through till the end. As a result a brick was thrown through our window and we did NOTHING, NOTHING about it. Our brothers started a verbal brawl that they ultimately had no intention of turning physical. Once it passed a certain point they had no choice but to back down.
The Dems are basically in the same position now.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
b) Yep, we're in pretty much the same position the Republicans were in the 1970s. Life goes on.
c) Yep.
d) Yep.
e) No one would be happier with victory in Iraq than I would. I would cheerfully admit I was totally wrong in my opposition to the war and celebrate the freedom of the Iraqi people.
You don't really think that's gonna happen, do you? Iraq will end up with either a Shiite dictator, a bloody civil war, partition, or some combination of the above. "Stable Iraqi democracy" is just about as likely as "ponies for all". If you think a downtick in sectarian violence changes that, well, I'd love to be able to believe right along with ya... but I don't.
The votes just aren't there. And the events on the ground have given Republicans enough cover that they aren't going to give the Dems the votes they need.
There are things the Democrats could do, but aren't, that would halt the war. But they'd be politically suicidal.
Personally, I think we should all be very relieved that Murtha & Co. didn't get their way. It would've been catastrophic. It would be one thing if we could actually rewind the clock and have a do-over on the Iraq War Resolution. But we are where we are, not where we were. And that will always be the case.
That said, I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you are about Iraq's future prospects. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and take you at your word that you want our policy to succeed there. But there's no indication, thus far, that Iraq's going to fall into the hands of a government as bad or worse than the previous one.
And that'll be doubly hard to pull off with a significant American troop presence (which, let's face it, there's going to be for the foreseeable future).
The problem is that there are two acceptable options, to me: either commit 100% to long-term victory in Iraq, or get out.
The former means at least another trillion dollars, and at least another five to ten years of commitment for the majority of our armed forces. Honestly, I don't think this is a price our country is willing to pay. Democracies are stunningly bad at long-term foreign wars of occupation. The perceived reward, too, is receding constantly. (Remember when Iraq was going to start the domino of democracy in the Middle East? Any takers for that idea today?)
Getting out is, as you say, politically unrealistic.
So we will probably end up with a third option, the worst one possible, which is essentially Vietnamization redux -- trying to fight a proxy war as a face-saving measure, with no real hope of achieving our original war aims. I am fairly certain that whoever ends up occupying the White House for the next eight years (or however long) will end up doing just this, regardless of what is being said on the campaign trail today.
(Remember when Iraq was going to start the domino of democracy in the Middle East? Any takers for that idea today?)
What's changed?
imagining that something as profoundly different as democracy in the Middle East would happen overnight, then I can see why you are so disillusioned. Nobody said it would happen that quickly.
Let's see here--we are asking for nothing from Iraq in the way of land or even oil, so far as I know, and Iraq has asked us to stay. So where do you find that we are fighting a war of occupation? As to long-term goals, we are being asked to stay in a country that is right smack dab in the middle of the biggest hot spot in the world. We get a permanent base to operate from and the ability to mobilize on a moment's notice right next door to Iran and Syria both. So what's the down
side here?
Fine, strike the "of occupation". You're right, actually, that's not really an accurate description of Iraq.
The rest of my post, I stand by.
The downside is the same as the downside of any war. Blood and treasure.
home. Go ask the average Iraqi if what we have done is something miraculous for them. Go ask the overwhelming majority of our troops who have fought there and are fighting still if it has all been worth it. Lastly, go ask the Marine families I know who have lost their own heart's treasure in this war if it has been worth it. Out of at least 15 that I know, only a couple oppose the war. The others fight on to support the troops in all the ways they know how because they believe in what we are doing there--liberating a brutally oppressed nation and helping to send it on its way to being a functioning democracy.
As to Vietnam analogies, you should go back and re-read some history--we were winning there before we lost it here.
It's been a great year for the neocons.
Now, don't you have some money to go give the Democrats, or something?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
It's why we love you, of course - but still...
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
based on your assessment of the situation, everything that has happened over the last six months didn't actually happen.
Right now the country is headed for a very complicated representative system of government in which the central government will have a much weaker role than certainly the U.S. and of course most of the Middle East. If you want to call it partition, you can, however it will happen naturally and the way it is leading there will still be one country.
If you want to ignore all of the reaching out of Sunni and Shia Sheiks to each other you can, however that is the sort of progress that will bring the country together.
What makes you think we are headed for a civil war, the percipitous drop in violence since May?
I agree that Iraq like most of the Middle East is F'ed up and stability there is not what we would consider stability, however that doesn't mean that our goal can't be accomplished and claiming now that things are still going bad just ignores the facts.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
The only true guarantor of stability is very simple: liberal democracy.
I don't mean "liberal" as in "welfare state". I mean "rule of law", "Constitutional republic" liberal.
Iraq is a million miles away from liberal democracy and will not get there in our lifetime. It has everything working against it: ethnic hatred, a religion that is the polar opposite of tolerant, an overabundance of oil, no tradition of separation of powers (i.e. independent judiciary), etc. etc. etc.
Both the left and the right are guilty of focusing on events in the Middle East in six-month chunks. History does not conform to the short attention span of the Western news media.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”