Now Who's Being Naive?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:47:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update [2007-5-4 21:57:3 by Big Tent Democrat]: I want to clarify that I do not mean to say that mahablog believes the one benchmark mentioned in the proposed bill she is touting is the end of the road, but rather a step in the "ratcheting up the pressure" process. I thought I was clear on that point but I want to make sure I am not misstating mahablog's position. I do not believe that changes my analysis of the situation. Indeed, I think John Edwards has the best response to that argument.

Being called naive by someone who believes this tickles me no end:

Monday I published a post about building a veto-proof majority in the House and Senate to vote against the war.

Bulding a veto-proof majority??? It takes 290 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate to override a Presidential veto. Let's just take the Senate. Can anyone name the 17 Republicans who are gonna vote to end the war please (Lieberman never will, so IF you can hold the 50 Dems, you need 17 Republican Senators.) And you call me naive? Puhleeeaze. It is no wonder that someone who believes a veto proof majority to end the war can be built thinks this:

One thing I like about these Democratic leaders is they’re very subtle and canny. We have to keep in mind, of course, that we’re dealing with a hostage situation here, and we have to protect our soldiers from this maniac.

Suuuure. That House Supplemental is working out like a charm for ending the war. Honestly, sometimes our side can be as stubborn in clinging to ideas that have been proven not to work as the Right.

Look what passes for benchmarks these days for this blogger:

In addition to the two months of Iraq funding, the bill would provide a $10 billion cushion to allow the military flexibility. It would also require the president to report back to Congress by July 13 on the extent to which the Iraqi government had met certain benchmarks for progress.

Oh no!!! Bush has to report back?!? Boy, that'll show him. Sheesh.

And the cognitive dissonance on display is apparent, for in this very same post she writes:

I see lots of bloggers think — naively, IMO — that a cutoff of funds would force Bush to withdraw troops. I have already explained why I think this is a foolish idea. Bush can move monies around for months to keep the war going, and if he’s as crazy as I think he is he’d see every U.S. soldier in Iraq starved or gunned down before he’d comply with a congressional mandate to bring them home. We’re dealing with a hostage situation here, and we have to protect our soldiers from this maniac.

(Emphasis mine.) So Bush is soooo crazy that he'll raid other programs, say the Social Security Trust fund, of 100 billion dollars, but REPORTING BACK TO CONGRESS is the real teeth that is gonna begin the spark of a Constitutional Crisis?!?!?!? My gawd. You must be kidding me.

I can't understand the "thinking" in that post. I just can't. It simply is nonsensical.

< Friday Open Thread | What A Murdoch-Owned WSJ Would Look Like >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Now Who's Being Naive? | 71 comments (71 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Given his record of signing statements, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 12:17:27 PM EST

a veto proof majority, even if it could be put together, would be a waste of time and energy re defunding or setting a withdrawal date

He can't veto a bill that doesn't exist.

Now who's being naive? (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 12:23:13 PM EST

Marge: Do you want your son to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or a sleazy male stripper?
Homer: Can't he be both, like the late Earl Warren?
Marge: Earl Warren was never a stripper!
Homer: Oh, now who's being naive?

: Oh My God (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by squeaky on Fri May 04, 2007 at 12:30:04 PM EST

Was he on Palfrey's list too? She didn't have male dancers? Nah, couldn't be.

: And the sad on point original (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 12:33:30 PM EST

Michael Corleone: My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.
Kay Adams: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed!
Michael Corleone: Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?

The simpler the better (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 12:39:54 PM EST

Greg Palast had a dream about the '04 presidential debates:

Mr. Tall could have won my vote with two words. It's the two-word answer John Kerry gave three decades ago when asked the same question --
"How can we get our troops out of a disastrous war?"
Then, the clear-minded, tall young man said,
"In ships."

If NO bill is introduced to fund Bush's occupation, the Navy will still have their funding.

: Come to think of it (none / 0) (#6)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 12:46:39 PM EST

There are two carrier groups in the area now, and the Nimitz is enroute.
That should be enough ships, for a start.
They could even hang up a big banner that reads: "Mission Accomplished".

Yes, Naive (5.00 / 5) (#7)
by maha on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:10:18 PM EST

I'm perfectly aware of the numbers. You assume that because something doesn't exist right now it can never exist in the future. If you are privileged to live long enough you figure out that events and institutions do change, and sometimes quickly and significantly, when the people in those institutions figure out it's in their best interest to change.

To beat Bush, the game has to be changed from "Republicans versus Democrats" to "Congress versus the White House." The current effort is about forcing Republicans to take a stand for or against Bush and his war. I don't expect enough Republicans to switch on this bill to make a significant difference, but the current vote is only one of a series of votes on Iraq that Congress will be making this year. I think there's a real possibility that by September or so enough of them will switch, so that a Bush veto could be overridden. I think that's true because enough of them face re-election next year (about 20 GOP Senators and all Congresspersons), and they've got to realize they're on the Titanic and it's their last chance to jump into a lifeboat.

The fact that you think that Bush would be brought to heel if funds for his war are cut off tells me you have no idea what you're dealing with. The man's a psychopath. I think he would just move monies around, in ways both legal and illegal, to keep the war going. If he's as sick as I think he is he'll see every soldier in Iraq stranded without food or bullets before he brings them home.

And if this bit of grandstanding were to take place right now, it would let Republicans in Congress off the hook. They could counter-grandstand on the irresponsible Democrats and won't be forced to turn their backs on Bush.

Cutting off funds would play into Bush's hands, in other words. Trust me when I say you can't beat a psychopath at his own game.

I realize it's frustrating not to be able to do something right now. I have a nephew in Baghdad right now, and I'm worried sick about him. But I don't believe anything at all can change without two-thirds of Congress.

The fact is, I think it's possible that if 100 percent of Congress were to vote on a mandatory order to begin withdrawing troops, Bush might still refuse. It may be necessary to remove the Creature and the Dick from office if troop withdrawals are going to begin before 2009. But, again, before that can happen you have to have a whole mess o' Republicans willing to go along with it.

But as anyone old enough to remember 1974 can tell you, it's happened before.

Thanks Dr. Frist. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by andgarden on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:38:23 PM EST

You're welcome, Tom DeLay n/t (1.00 / 2) (#15)
by maha on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:40:11 PM EST

: You're the one psychoanalyzing (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by andgarden on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:42:51 PM EST

off of TV statements.

Thanks for your reply (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:45:33 PM EST

but it creates many questions as to what you understand to be true. For example you write:

"Move monies around" is quite the phrase. What monies? Move how? 100 billion dollars in "monies" susceptible to being "moved around" lies where?

I've lived long enough to remember Iran-Contra. The problem of "moving monies around" is why Iran-Contra happened. Congress cut off funding to the Contras and to raise relatively paltry amounts Reagan had to sell missiles to Iran and ask for money from the Sultan of Brunei. Are you actually suggesting Bush can a sell 100 billion dollars of missiles to fund the Iraq Debacle? This is not reasoning on your part, this is just assertion without reference to the facts.

You write:

The institution in question here is the Republican Party. THEIR BASE is adamant in support of Bush. The Republican Party's reality has always been defined by what the base says. And the base says what the authoritarian Leader says. That leader is Bush.

I ask my question to you again - which 15 Republican Senators do you expect will "turn" on Bush? Please name them. They do not exist.

To believe they do is naive.

Suuuure they will. Name them. Name the ones up for reelection that you think will switch. Add them up. Do they add up to 15?

Finally, you simply do not understand the Reid-Feingold framework. You write:

Cutting off funds would play into Bush's hands, in other words. Trust me when I say you can't beat a psychopath at his own game.
I realize it's frustrating not to be able to do something right now. I have a nephew in Baghdad right now, and I'm worried sick about him. But I don't believe anything at all can change without two-thirds of Congress.

The Reid-Feingold framework does not cut off funding now. It cuts it off 11 months from now. The American People overwhelmingly support this. The Reid-Feingold framework calls for ANNOUNCING NOW the intention to NOT fund after March 31, 2008.

The Reid-Feingold framework does not require passage of any bills nor any signatures from the President nor any defections from Republicans. It is easily the most PRAGMATIC approach that is out there.

Frankly, there is a logical disconnect in what you appear to be advocating; to wit, Bush is crazy therefore let's ratchet up the pressure on him. It is reminiscent of Rudy's approach on Iran, he is a madman therefore he must understand we will strike him.

I think in the end, you are arguing for impeachment:

It may be necessary to remove the Creature and the Dick from office if troop withdrawals are going to begin before 2009. But, again, before that can happen you have to have a whole mess o' Republicans willing to go along with it.
But as anyone old enough to remember 1974 can tell you, it's happened before.

And I am the one he needs to get his feet back on the ground? Okaaay.


This seems to be the disconnect: (1.00 / 1) (#26)
by Naftali on Fri May 04, 2007 at 02:30:56 PM EST

maha apparently believes that a veto-proof majority can be created.

You apparently believe that Bush will withdraw the troops simply because they aren't funded.

You're both wrong.


Well (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 02:34:43 PM EST

Some reasoning behind your assertins, both the one I agree with and disagree with, with be helpful. I have spent many months marshaling evidence and arguments for my point of view.

Your comment is pretty worthless to me at the least. I would need more.


Fair enough! (none / 0) (#31)
by Naftali on Fri May 04, 2007 at 02:51:45 PM EST

And if I hadn't been just crying out for attention, I would've phrased that as a question, probably.

I entirely agree that we're not gonna build a veto-proof majority. If we play 'let's pretend' and try to build that list of 17, how far do we get? I can count as far as seven, and that's stretching things wafer thin. Once I hit 10, we're in laughable territory ...

But I simply don't understand the presumption that Bush will withdraw troops if the funding is cut off. Let's say the Democrats talk about a cut-off date of November, and we're unified for once, and really sticking to the message: 'we're fully funding a withdrawal, and after November, no more money.' Isn't that the plan?

So November comes and goes, and the troops remain in Iraq. Now say this is clearly Bush's decision, not to withdraw them, because for once we've won the framing fight. But still, that's his decision, and unless I'm wrong he's the only one who can make that specific decision.

But he doesn't. He keeps them there. Despite the lack of funding, and all the warning, and his approval rating in the low 20s, he doesn't withdraw them. Why would he? He doesn't want to. So they're in Iraq still, and the fungible money's being used, but even that's running dry. And he doesn't withdraw them. And there is no pressure we can apply to make him (short of removal from office). And everything's still going to hell, and the troops are still there, and ... what?

At the point, the Democrats start passing emergency funding requests or we don't. But either way, the troops are not withdrawn.


Not the issue though (none / 0) (#34)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:09:19 PM EST

But I simply don't understand the presumption that Bush will withdraw troops if the funding is cut off.

Is there a presumption that murders will never happen because there is a law against it? Or a presumption that bank robberies will not happen because bank robbery is not sanctioned and funded by congress?

Bush may not withdraw the troops if it is defunded. He will not withdraw them if it is funded.

But he will have zero credibility and political sway. It pulls the rug out from under him.


And the law will apply. (none / 0) (#35)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:12:43 PM EST

He will be obviously and irrefutably a criminal. Which isn't different from what he is now, except that the power of the law (impeachment) will obtain and he will have no way to fight it.


How? (none / 0) (#37)
by Naftali on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:25:37 PM EST

Granted, he's obviously and irrefutably a criminal already (trumpeting his crimes re. wiretapping was as fine an example of 'monologuing' a la The Incredibles as I've seen), but how will keeping the troops in Iraq be irrefutably criminal? He has the sole legal authority to withdraw them--or not--doesn't he? Congress has the power of the purse, but cutting off funds doesn't dictate that the troops legally must be withdrawn, does it?

Or am I losing the track of what you're saying?


Maybe I'm choosing the wrong words (none / 0) (#39)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:32:11 PM EST

I'm not a lawyer and don't mean that in that sense. I mean criminal in the sense of impeachable.


And in the sense of morally. (none / 0) (#40)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:32:32 PM EST

I agree, then. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Naftali on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:02:11 PM EST

I think defunding is the best approach, morally. I only resist the notion that it'll be an effective approach in terms of forcing the redeployment of troops. (I'm not really sure what the most effective approach politically is, as that turns on too many factors, among them message control.)


Oh, and possibly (none / 0) (#48)
by Naftali on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:03:48 PM EST

the best way to lay the groundwork for impeachment, too, though I think we're back in the 'counting Republicans' spiral once we go there ...


Actually (none / 0) (#59)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:14:52 PM EST

I think it will be effective in forcing him to withdraw them also, precisely because it will castrate him politically. His party will force it.

That's when republicans will peel off on their own. They will do what rethugs do, and turn on him, I think.


Don't forget that Bush (none / 0) (#64)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:43:04 PM EST

is destroying GOP fortunes and that only as long as they think he can hold off or somehow blame the debacle on Democrats will they stay with him. If they see him powerless they'll chuck him over the side so fast it will make your head spin, I think. He has huge problems from the GOP now.


So you agree with Maha on (none / 0) (#68)
by Naftali on Fri May 04, 2007 at 07:59:32 PM EST

the veto-proof majority!

You just disagree about which path leads there.


: I hadn't thought about it (none / 0) (#70)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 10:34:33 PM EST

in those terms. I just think that might be when rethugs jump ship in droves trying to save their own political skins, but it'll probably be too late for that.
If it is defunded first.
They'll fight defunding it though.

Well, I think there's (none / 0) (#36)
by Naftali on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:21:29 PM EST

a precisely equal chance of withdrawal in either case, but I suppose that's just opinion, and utterly unprovable.

As far as credibility and political sway go ... same thing. I don't see Bush's ignoring a date certain for defunding as doing him any more damage, particularly, than any other course of action. This is the president who got a huge boost in credibility for not stopping the attacks of 9/11.

But you seem to be arguing that we should defund on a date certain not for the effect of that action, entirely, but also because it's the right thing to do. And I can't argue with that.


: I am (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:26:36 PM EST

because it is the right thing to do, IMO. It would be Congress standing up and saying this is wrong and must stop. And I also think, IMO again, that they would find nearly the whole country get behind them.

Great point (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:45:09 PM EST

: Thanks. (none / 0) (#60)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:16:57 PM EST

I am curious (none / 0) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:44:46 PM EST

how Bush keeps anyone there without funds.


Okay, this time (none / 0) (#46)
by Naftali on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:59:37 PM EST

you're the one who has to expand his point.

I don't understand. He keeps them there by not ordering them elsewhere. Am I misunderstanding you?


how does he feed them (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:39:35 PM EST

pay them, arm them, treat them, etc.

You can't fight a war without money. This has been true since the Romans until today.


He doesn't. (none / 0) (#55)
by Naftali on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:46:01 PM EST

And yet, he refuses to withdraw them. And he waits for the Democrats to start passing emergency funding bills. Or not. If he himself isn't suffering personally, then there is no urgent problem.


And if the Dems do not? (none / 0) (#57)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:58:16 PM EST

Just to play out this unlikely scenario?

You see, one of the myths that run on our side of th blogs is that Bush has been defying Congress for 6 years.

He has not. Not once that I know of.

Signing statements are pieces of paper, they are not defiance.


Defying Congress (5.00 / 3) (#61)
by squeaky on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:18:22 PM EST

Well yeah, because they have not once stood up to him. For the most part they are enablers with their fingers in the wind.


: Bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:25:01 PM EST

Well, if they (none / 0) (#58)
by Naftali on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:10:17 PM EST

don't pass emergency funding, the pressue will mount and mount until the side that a) cares more about the actual people serving and b) has more to lose politically, looking to future races, finally gives in. And I imagine we agree about how the media would frame such a battle of the wills. Even if they assigned some responsiblity to Bush, they'd still reserve more pressure for the adults to act like adults. When your 15 year old and your 4 year old are fighting, you tell the teenager to cool it first.

I don't think Bush has been defying Congress all that much, not least because they've been rubber-stamping him. I think he's been defying the Constitution, though, and breaking the law then bragging about it, and I think he cares absolutely nothing for the rule of law, the political process, or the individuals serving in the military. His circle is care is drawn much tighter than that. I'm not sure what in his past behavior would make me believe that he'd rather allow the Democrats to dictate his actions instead of suffering whatever (extremely easily-born) consequnces he might. His physical well-being isn't on the line. And even his political well-being only currently exists among the dead-enders, who no doubt would support his strength and resolve ...

And things like Rice saying she won't honor a subpeona are defying Congress, no? Ignoring the FISA laws? I dunno, I learned most of this stuff from reading you, on dKos.


Nope (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:26:28 PM EST

Forget the politics of it. The Iraq Cake is baked.

So long as Dems are perceived as ending the war, they win.

No matter what.


: I agree on the (none / 0) (#67)
by Naftali on Fri May 04, 2007 at 07:57:57 PM EST

politics, I disagree that this'll get the troops out.

Isn't that what Putin did in Checynya? (none / 0) (#49)
by oculus on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:04:47 PM EST

I'm curious too... (none / 0) (#56)
by Dadler on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:46:44 PM EST

...though I can't, with this president, say anything is impossible. Their view of executive power, and their ability to carry that power out with the help of congress and the courts, leads me to think they could drag it out somehow. At the least, if put to the test, you'd see this administration come up with some even more wild bullsh*t to try and get around defunding. You know they would. They'd come up with a new, heretofore unknown, legal wedge. Something like, I don't know, the difference between a commander and chief's strategic withdrawl and Congress's legislative withdrawl. You know, invent new terms to stretch new meanings to extend old power.

But I'm not quite ready to be that cynical yet, since Bush has stated that Congress does have the power of the purse and can end the war with it. Tho he obviously doesn't believe for a second, and probably rightfully so, that it would ever happen.


Impeacheable offenses (none / 0) (#8)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:23:45 PM EST

every soldier in Iraq stranded without food or bullets

Announce at the same time, and repeat it as often, that the funding ends on date certain, and that not bringing them home when the funding ends is impeachable because it will be Bush that is hurting the troops.

Control the message. Not respond to Bush's message.


It has to be an offense tactic (none / 0) (#9)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:26:01 PM EST

not defense.


There will be no offense (none / 0) (#12)
by maha on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:36:41 PM EST

... until we have an overwhelming force on our side. That means we've got to swing more Republicans to our side. Cutting off funding will not, IMO, force Bush to bring the troops home. And then what do you do? You've given away the game.


Swinging rethugs only works with a rope. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 02:32:02 PM EST

How many republicans have you seen at Mahablog repudiate Bush and the Debacle because of liberals trying to swing them over?

Forget peeling off republican reps and senators. You'll get about the same success rate.


: And this is true throughout the country (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 02:36:21 PM EST

75% of Republicans still support the Iraq Debacle.
90% of Dems and 75% of Indepenedents oppose it.

Sure (none / 0) (#10)
by maha on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:33:13 PM EST

Most of the media are in the Right's pocket, which makes message control a bit tricky. And it still comes down to public pressure, meaning you're trying to sway public opinion so that, somehow, Bush will be forced to do something he doesn't want to do. But by now it ought to be clear he doesn't give a hoohaw about public opinion. It won't work.

More important, you're saying you are willing to play chicken with the lives of the troops. We'll allow them to die in order to save them, in other words. That's not a game I'm willing to play.


Playing Chicken With The Troops? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by MO Blue on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:18:18 PM EST

If the Iraq debacle continues until the end of 2008, based on the casualty rates of the last six months, 1,700 additional troops will die in Iraq. Unless you firmly believe that Bush's NEW?? policies in Iraq will work, those deaths are pretty certain. Their lives are being bet on the off chance that Republicans will suddenly go against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of their base. Odds would be very long of that ever happening IMO.


: I sadly consider those lives a given (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Militarytracy on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:31:34 PM EST

If we end up with less dead I'm having a party to celebrate! What some people do not want to seem to understand either is that troops will also have to be there during our leave taking. If we get lucky and start leaving this fall instead of combat my husband will probably fly guard beside the American convoys leaving just as he did when they were coming in. So our soldiers can die getting the h*ll out of Dodge and aiding Iraqis who need to be placed in safer areas before we leave, or they can die doing nothing of importance and then even more troops will still die when we finally take our leave! Can't lose for losing today on this one!

Nice Obama baloney talking point (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by Militarytracy on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:32:13 PM EST

You can find reasons TO do something (none / 0) (#19)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:49:28 PM EST

or you can find reasons NOT to do something. No one can convince you to do something if you've already decided not to.

The implication, btw, that defunding it is "allowing them to die to save them" is offensive in the extreme and worthy of Bush and rethugs. Only.

If you want to play that game with me, fine: Leaving them in there to continue to die because you're afraid of rethugs calling you names and blaming you for their dying is the same ends justify the means delusion that the rethugs spew out daily.

Just who's side are you on?


BTW, regarding "impeachable" (none / 0) (#17)
by maha on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:45:01 PM EST

It takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate to remove a President from office. That means we need 57 Republicans, assuming all Dems vote for removal. Otherwise even impeachment would not stop Bush.

I say again, the game must be changed from "Republicans versus Democrats" to "Congress versus the White House," meaning a substantial number of Republicans have to take a stand against Bush before anything meaningful can be accomplished.


And I say (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:51:00 PM EST

you are not dealing with the real situation when you think that is a possibility.


This (none / 0) (#21)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:52:28 PM EST

the game must be changed from "Republicans versus Democrats" to "Congress versus the White House

is exactly what we are pushing for. You've defined it, but you don't want to back it till someone else does it for you.

Very helpful.


I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:53:33 PM EST

in this sense. I haqve no expectation that it will ever be Republicans and Democrats together vs. Bush.

It will be the DEMOCRATIC Congress vs. the REPUBLICAN Bush.


: That is what I meant (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 02:16:12 PM EST

I did use a poor choice of words, in a way. Republicans will never be onside with it. Democrats control the house. I should have said Democratic Congress. Heat of moment.

This is where the GOP is and will be (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:58:13 PM EST

The GOP candidates found much to agree on when the questions turned to foreign policy, with all but one, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, supporting President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq and taking a hard line against Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Link.

That is the party you are counting on to end the war.

That seems naive to me, to say the least.


Maha (none / 0) (#25)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 02:25:02 PM EST

You get a couple of thousand a day visiting your blog. Today you've had about 1100 so far. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I would bet money that one of the reasons you began blogging is to add a voice to counteracting the MSM.

On this issue though, it appears you want to wait till someone else puts the ball on the one yard line or close enough for comfort for you before you'll add your voice.

To me that looks like tossing in the towel before you get in the ring.

"The easy way always turns out to be the hard way, and vice versa"
--Me

Playing it safe is the riskiest thing in the world, and in this case WILL result in more death. That won't be your fault because you played it safe, it will still be Bush's fault. But it will not help end it. By your own analysis Bush is a psycho who will never end the debacle until forced to.

He counts on people playing it safe.


But this is what I don't understand: (none / 0) (#32)
by Naftali on Fri May 04, 2007 at 02:57:14 PM EST

Say we do all that, and we even manage to control the message, and the Republicans don't have a countervailing message of their own that's being pushed by the 'Shape of Earth: Views Differ' media.

And Bush still doesn't bring the troops home.

Then what? Then we've laid the groundwork for impeachment, and we try that? Is that the next step?


Then (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:46:09 PM EST

impeachment is all that's left.

But if you go for impeachment first, you get neither.


BTD, I agree with you (none / 0) (#66)
by conchita on Fri May 04, 2007 at 06:46:37 PM EST

I spoke today with someone from WorldCan'tWait who told me that Howard Zinn is calling upon activist groups to join together to organize nationwide impeachment townhalls at the end of May. I don't disagree with Zinn's initiative, but I did disagree with one of the ways my contact from WorldCan'tWait framed the action - to distract from the media attention on the kabuki between the WH and Congress. Wrong! I can see building momentum for impeachment as a Plan B to defunding withdrawal, but not as an alternative.

I also have to admit that this made me see the light vis a vis your point a few nights ago.


: funding and impeachment (none / 0) (#69)
by Molly Bloom on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:33:50 PM EST

RE funding, I agree with BTD that Reid Feingold is all Congress has in the end, short of impeachment. Impeachment is not the practical way to end the war.
As for impeachment generally, I support it because it is in my judgement the right thing to do for the sake of our constitution.
That doesn't mean I think it is going to happen. There may even be good practical reasons not to do it. However, to allow Bush (or any President who behaves the way Bush is behaving) to claim the right to lock people up without trial or evidence or lawyers; or to make a fraudulent case for war without some sanction is the end of our American experiment.

The game (none / 0) (#28)
by Alien Abductee on Fri May 04, 2007 at 02:34:41 PM EST

To beat Bush, the game has to be changed from "Republicans versus Democrats" to "Congress versus the White House"

As if the average person identifies with Congress.

Haven't you noticed how the WH sets this up?:

Bush: "It didn't make any sense to impose the will of politicians over the recommendations of our military commanders in the field."

Only left bloggers are identifying with Dems in Congress and their fight against incipient dictatorship. And that's a stretch.

As long as it's that instead of in fact "the people versus the White House," forget it, it's hopeless. And American Idol seems to be much more important to the American people. Look at this and tell me anybody cares.

Until they hear otherwise the Republicans are just going to keep following their leader.


Benchmarks and March '08 (none / 0) (#41)
by talex on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:37:15 PM EST

Here is something I posted over at Dkos.

To put it into context I am responding to a poster who thinks that the currenent back room talks going on between Dem's and repubs regarding benchmarks are a farce. Here is my reply:

Well we are a little off from each other on this.
I don't see them as a farce on the Dem's part. As I said in my original post that you responded to I see them as a way to put non-political progress in Iraq "On the Record". Bush won't put zero progress on the record or even talk about it in a straight forward manner. So it is important that someone does so the public has a way of measuring of political progress there. As I said in my post I think that measurement will further win public sentiment to our side which is what we need.
As for the Repubs yeah it is a bit of a farce as they do not at this point want to put any consequences behind the missed benchmarks to actually make them mean something. But on the political side we need to 'inch' them along with us and any benchmarks they back is a statement on their part that they believe that political progress should be made. Once they are on record voting for that and the benchmarks are not met then they are painted into a corner about what they are willing to do about it.
If the answer is nothing then we simply show the public that they voted for progress but like Bush are unwilling to enforce progress. Politically we win there (think '08).
But if they do wake up and say we must do something about no progress then they just might move another 'inch' in our direction and sign on to something with teeth in it.
So either way as long as we get them to accept benchmarks - even without consequences for not meeting them - we win something in the end.
Do benchmarks at this point end the war? No. But what are our other legitimate options?
Without the Repubs we will never get Bush to sign anything so we must attempt to 'inch' them along and I believe that we can make progress on that. Already additional Repubs like Snowe are presenting their own bills to end the war. More will follow. We just need to take their hand and lead them one step at a time.
That is why at this point I endorse short term funding with benchmarks. And then in another 60 days the surge will have reached a point where everyone who said we will measure it's effectiveness in September will have to admit what is going on there which will likely be chaos. Then some more Repubs should be ready to move more in our direction.
If we slowly lead them maybe by March '08 we can actually have a veto proof majority. March '08 was a goal anyway. If we can't get there in one big jump then we should strive to get there in increments. It's more painful that way but in the end result could be the same - Out in March '08.

Read this: (5.00 / 4) (#45)
by robotalk on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:51:17 PM EST

"This is deja vu all over again. We saw it in Vietnam and we saw it earlier this year. We don't need any more non-binding resolutions or big statements; we need to end the war. I've been in Washington, so I understand the urge to make a statement - but in this situation, statements can be an excuse for inaction. Congress has a clear choice - they can talk about ending the war, or they can just end it. The only way for Congress to end the war is to cut off the money for it, and they should concentrate on doing just that. Anything else is just noise."

John Edwards today.

See this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/4/122213/1021

: Good for Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:07:29 PM EST

Nice to hear.

: He understands it now (none / 0) (#65)
by Edger on Fri May 04, 2007 at 06:36:49 PM EST

The only way to stop doing something is to stop doing it. The action is the result.
As long as you keep wondering how to stop you're not stopping, you're procrastinating. The action is the excuse.

Since when... (none / 0) (#11)
by Lora on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:36:38 PM EST

...has Bush done ANYTHING other than exactly what he wants to do?

: Right (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by maha on Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:38:39 PM EST

I strongly suspect the only possible end game is removing Bush from office. Otherwise we'll just be butting heads with him until 2009.

: Harriet Miers! (none / 0) (#33)
by Naftali on Fri May 04, 2007 at 02:59:47 PM EST

If only we can get the Republican base behind withdrawal ...

Maha (none / 0) (#71)
by Che's Lounge on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:20:15 AM EST

is sure dead on about one thing. Bush is a psychopath.

And more are coming around to an observation that I made a month ago: