GOOD FOR THEM (BUT WILL THE DECIDER LET IT BE GOOD FOR THE TROOPS?)
I have to say I'm impressed with the Dems: they've passed a bill to bring the troops home this autumn. It's what we voters "asked" them to do, and they've followed the mandate. Nice job.
Of course, White House Deputy Press Secretary, Dana Perino, told the press the bill is "dead on arrival."
Just like the troops Bush is still set on sending to the Bagdad meat grinder, huh?
We know the Decider is gonna break out his normally-dormant veto pen, sending it back to The Hill, likely failing to garner the necessary override votes. Nevertheless, it's good to see them putting pressure on the Administration and the Congressional GOPers (and the few Dems who didn't vote yea).
Let's see what Plan B holds.
Incidentally, the version I linked to today doesn't include the reference, but when I read it yesterday, the article noted that the bill is due to arrive on Bush's desk on Tuesday: the 4th Anniversary of his ludicrous appearence on the aircraft carrier, prancing & preening like a teenage boy on prom night, posing for photos in his package-hugging flyboy suit, declaring an end to combat action in Iraq. You remember, "Mission Accomplished."
Anyhow, Dana Perino declared that such timing regarding the bill would constitute a "ridiculous PR stunt."
All I can say is, what could possibly be more appropriate?
Of course, White House Deputy Press Secretary, Dana Perino, told the press the bill is "dead on arrival."
Just like the troops Bush is still set on sending to the Bagdad meat grinder, huh?
We know the Decider is gonna break out his normally-dormant veto pen, sending it back to The Hill, likely failing to garner the necessary override votes. Nevertheless, it's good to see them putting pressure on the Administration and the Congressional GOPers (and the few Dems who didn't vote yea).
Let's see what Plan B holds.
Incidentally, the version I linked to today doesn't include the reference, but when I read it yesterday, the article noted that the bill is due to arrive on Bush's desk on Tuesday: the 4th Anniversary of his ludicrous appearence on the aircraft carrier, prancing & preening like a teenage boy on prom night, posing for photos in his package-hugging flyboy suit, declaring an end to combat action in Iraq. You remember, "Mission Accomplished."
Anyhow, Dana Perino declared that such timing regarding the bill would constitute a "ridiculous PR stunt."
All I can say is, what could possibly be more appropriate?
Labels: Bring 'Em Home, Send Him Home
posted by Mike at 7:57 AM
10 Comments:
Of course, White House Deputy Press Secretary, Dana Perino, told the press the bill is "dead on arrival."
Just like the troops Bush is still set on sending to the Bagdad meat grinder, huh?
All too true.
Nice to see Congress finally doing its job.
Let's see how they play it after the inevitable veto.
even an extremely basic understanding of game theory would show the dems that "tit for tat" is almost always the best way to play. if you receive co-operation, then, by all means, co-operate. if you receive aggression, respond in kind. veto, schmeto. bush has always whined, sulked and complained about how unfair his life has been when ever his daddy sent the hordes of other rich people to bail sonnyboy out yet another time. but, in the end, he'd always shut up and take the money. if congress digs in that's exactly what he'll do, he'll shut up and take the money. they can't get anything else through, the people will probably side with congress because while america loves a rebel, adores a bad boy, we hate a fucking bully. bush has been a bullyboy far too long.
Sounds legitimate, if only because while Bush has always shown he'll take the money, he's also shown that he'll lie & cheat.
He can agree to "let the troops come home" in October, then find some excuse not to do so come late summer.
Even if Dubs signed this bill in some miraculous act of clear-headedness, could we honestly expect these folks to withdraw the troops in a competent manner? Their track record speaks for itself.
What do you think, if this actually happened, would it be a real withdrawel or just a "withdrawel".
As in, out or just redeployment to garrison in country. I had kind of figured the latter, but I'm not sure that's what the Dems are getting at.
-------------------------
Politically this would be dynamite if Bush signed it. He could sign it, blame Dems for it and withdraw. I think it calls for withdrawel beginning in July and complete in October?
I think a fair prediction would be that after a forced withdrawel of US forces you'd have a Sadrist on Sunni genocide, perhaps millions dead. The Saudis and Syrians would intervene on the Sunni side (however covertly), Iran would have to do the same on the Shia side.
All starting in October and playing out during a presidential election? Forget it. This is a cynical ploy by Dems to appease their base. They don't WANT Bush to agree to this, and regardless, he isn't going to do it. This is going to be left for Hillary! to handle.
But people reach compromises by exerted extreme positions. Perhaps we'll atually get some withdrawal from Bagdad to the interior -- an end to the surge, if you will.
That'd be more than enough of a start. GOP bullshitting notwithstanding, the goal isn't to lose, but to prevent American soldiers from dying for no reason.
sigh
Sorry for the spello. I'm having trouble with my spellchecker and I was in a hurry.
I don't think so Mike.
1) I don't think the Dems really want Bush to do anything like a withdrawal.
2) Even if they did they can't get there. They don't have the cock to make it happen.
3) I don't see how moving people from Baghdad to the interior accomplishes anything. It won't stop the bloodshed in Baghdad, it will make it worse, and it won't stop US troops from dying either. They'll STILL bomb US troops no matter where they are.
And frankly, I'm not ready to sit back and watch a million or more Iraqis die in a genocidal ethnic cleansing and hear the entire world blame the US for it.
An end to the surge? Fark man the surge just started. It isn't even fully implemented. And Petrae...Petraio...whatisname says he thinks it will work. And I remind you, the Dems confirmed him unanimously.
You know, I was appalled to learn that they had no post-invasion plan. Not just a bad or poorly thought out plan, but NO plan. Rumsfeld really fucked this up - Bush too. I gave them far too much credit.
However, it appears they at least have some plan to fix things now. And the truth is nothing is going to change until a new admin is sworn in. I'm hoping whoever wins in 08 hires a good SecDef and is really committed to success.
Otherwise we're going to be screwed and millions of people are going to die and AQ is going to have a new base in Iraq and this is going to go on far, far longer and the US is only going to end up covered in blood.
You know, I've tried to figure out where I went wrong in my thinking about this fucking deal. Have you? Its easy to say Bush lied, blah blah. But a lot of us supported this fiasco and I think we were just far too guilible. For my own part I had far too much confidence in the ability of our hard power to accomplish things and way too much ignorance of foreign (Arab or Islamic) culture.
I still don't think things are lost irretrievably but my hopes and expectations are at such a low ebb there are mud flats as far as the eye can see.
Erm...too long sorry. Very busy here.
What a surprise.
Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable
"Compromise Bill in Works After Veto Override Fails
By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 3, 2007; Page A01
President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq."
That sure didn't take long did it?
I'm stunned.
Not.
I hear you, Dwilkers, believe me.
But, playing Devil's Advocate, what would have them do at this point, since they don't have the votes for an override?
Post a Comment
<< Home