Friday, March 30, 2007

Why the Supplemental stinks on ice

Of course, Arthur Silber and Matt Taibbi say it better than I do, but I'll throw my two cents in anyway.

I'm going to apply my almost superhuman powers of logical analysis, my incredibly deep political, historical and diplomatic knowledge, my numerous shadowy connections to high-level bureaucrats to evaluate this issue:

The Supplemental is a crock of shit. It stinks on ice because, it doesn't, you know, actually end the Iraq War.

Deep, eh?

The war in Iraq is not just "bad". It's not just way too expensive, in lives and money. It's not just damaging to American interests.

The war in Iraq is evil. I do not believe that any person of conscience can ever assent to spend even one more dollar on this monstrous evil, regardless of the personal or political consequences.

The American people elected Democratic candidates in 2006 for pretty much one reason. After extensive polling and analysis, I've concluded that this reason was not to listen to the Democrats talk about maybe ending the war someday. They elected these candidates to actually end the war.

"But we don't have the votes in congress to end the war!" sayeth the "progressive" pundits. "We have to support this bill because it's the best we can get. We have to pass something, and we have to pass it right now."

I call bullshit.

Maybe we don't have the votes in congress to end the war. Who knows? No vote has been taken in Congress on any bill to actually end the war.

The Supplemental is—maybe—the bill that, after a vicious fight with Cheney Bush and the Blue Dog Democrats Republicans in Congress, we'd be dragged kicking and screaming into voting for sometime in May or June. It's the bill we—maybe—would vote for after putting all these pro-war fuckers on the record. It's the bill we—maybe—would vote for after after Bush makes it absolutely crystal clear that he will in fact literally strand more than 100,000 American soldiers in Iraq with no food rather than allow the war to end. Maybe.

Pelosi woulda coulda shoulda... She could have strong-armed the Blue Dog democrats. She could have brought the fully funded withdrawal to the floor and let it get voted down. She could have pushed this fight past the day when we had enough money to withdraw the troops, and let Bush go on record that he himself would abandon the troops rather than end the war.

Bush is going to veto the supplemental. He's given us ample evidence that he doesn't give a rat's ass for public opinion. Bush is going to end up getting exactly what he wants. He knows now he can hold out for a "clean" supplemental, and he will. And he'll get it, too, wait and see.

The Republican party will back him. They know that they're going to lose in 2008, so they'll lose on principle; any inconvenienced legislators will become consultants and lobbyists with their fingers in the same corporate pies. They'll roar back in 2010, with war in Iraq still raging and expanded to Iran, and—more importantly—the Democrats' problem. We'll have Giuliani as president in 2012, and it will then be time for the most savage of paybacks, both on the people of the Middle East and the people of America. Giuliani is not.. ahem... the most forgiving of men.

3 comments:

  1. I don't understand why the Democrats couldn't think of a better way to play politics. Hell, Matthew Yglesias was able to:

    Stick to the letter of the War Powers Act. Approve the supplemental appropriation for 3 months. Then, either the Republicans have to poo-poo the money, or they have three months to watch the war spiral down further, giving the Democrats time to actually put together and pass a war-ending bill. It's not like the Democrats lack for plans to do so well: Zbigniew Brzizinski and Brent Scowcroft have excellent ideas, just to name two.

    But what is truly, truly scary, is that Hillary Clinton -- and to a lesser extent Edwards and Obama -- are more of the same. The only thing worse is McCain, who is Bush on crack.

    ReplyDelete
  2. yep. except for the inevitability of the Dems winning in '08, and except for Giuliani being the one to sweep in.

    the scary thing is i can think of worse scenarios.

    god, where did these people ever learn to bargain? don't they know that you start by asking for MORE than you know you're gonna get? that that's how it WORKS?

    ReplyDelete
  3. and yeah, McCain is loathsome.

    what really worries me is that we'll end up just losing any sort of progressive alternative at all; instead it'll end up becoming a fight between these assclowns and a sort of nativist paleocon, probably with strong theocratic/Christianist leanings. you know, all that brownshirtism has to go somewhere...

    ReplyDelete

Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.

With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.

No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.

See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.

Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.

I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.

Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.

I've already answered some typical comments.

I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.