Oppose Bush's Iraq Policy? Then Vote Against It

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 12:35:11 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Matt Yglesias revisits the points he and I made yesterday about the emptiness of the Lugar/Voinovich "opposition" to Bush's Iraq policy:

When Republicans want to . . . vote to override Bush's veto, then they'll be breaking with Bush on Iraq. Until then, both the ones talking a good game and the ones talking bad one are, in fact, backing the president. What's more, it seems to me that we're well passed the point where any political purpose is advanced in a useful way by deliberately exaggerating the extent of intra-GOP disagreement. Before the 2004 election was a good time to hear about Republican dissent. Before the 2006 election, even. But folks who wait until after an electoral drubbing to start distancing themselves from their party's leaders don't deserve to be hailed as great independent thinkers.

Two points. First, the legislation Bush vetoed did not even have BINDING timelines. Second, when Matt writes "both the ones talking a good game and the ones talking a bad one are, in fact, backing the president," that applies to Democrats too.

< Wednesday Open Thread | GOP Primary Fever >

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.

Oppose Bush's Iraq Policy? Then Vote Against It | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Here here (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by TexDem on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 12:51:58 PM EST

Abso- f@#king-lutely!

Unless you believe that the Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by andgarden on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 12:55:20 PM EST

can't really do anything. That's the Talex/Kargo X argument, and the maneuver by the OVP today proves them wrong: the spending power works.

I think it is their egoes at this point (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:10:32 PM EST

talking.


Whose? (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:14:02 PM EST

The Talex/Kargo X's. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:27:28 PM EST

: This may explain why I instinctively skip X's (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by oculus on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:55:13 PM EST

posts.

I tend to agree with you on that. (none / 0) (#7)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:29:36 PM EST

What else could it be? It's not a complex concept.


Either that (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:34:56 PM EST

or... they want the occupation of Iraq to continue.


Many things can be very difficult (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:51:46 PM EST

and it comes down to how much you really want to accomplish something or just vent about the status quo. Our son has severe scoliosis and when my husband was in Iraq last time it was at 96 degrees at the top curve. There was an unapproved FDA procedure called Titanium Rib that could be his only hope because soon he was going to be paralyzed and as things progressed death would follow. He was four. What a fight. I fought with doctors, Tricare (ever try to get an insurance company to pay for an unapproved FDA procedure?), myself late at night because it was a horribly invasive procedure and could kill our son. I had to tease apart each road block and every block required something different confronting people, writing long letters explaining to Tricare how much money they would save in the long run by paying for the surgery and hey, if the kid dies you won't have to pay one cent more for him from then on huh? It was the most seemingly impossible task I have ever faced. It is three years done now and my son is going to be in second grade next year and he walks and talks too much. The procedure was FDA approved two months after I won my battle but it was still a good thing because the line for the surgery was very long once it was FDA approved and our son did need immediate attention.


I hope he is doing well now and (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:02:39 PM EST

continues too. What a thing to go through. Not only for you and your husband but especially for your son.

Things can be difficult, yes. Correct me if I misinterpret please, but It seems that your point is that you had looked at and given much careful consideration to all the options over a long period, and had finally come to a conclusion and a decision that there was only one route to take, and there was no more debate or consideration of other routes at that point.

Am I reading you the way you intended?


Ya, that was what I was pointing out (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:21:15 PM EST

We even had to deal with a couple of Army doctors unfamiliar with the procedure tell me that I was using my child as a guinea pig when I only wanted to save his life....what a mental mind trip...go home and cry until my husband was able to phone home again and we discussed what needed to happen to get beyond to the next step. We knew what had to happen in order for Joshua to live and because the medical technology was so new, first we had to convince doctors that weren't aware of it, then we had to convince an insurance company, but he is doing really well. He is a brilliant little stinker and though he will never use his body to make a living he has the mind to do whatever he wants. When things are very serious and life and death, sometimes the only thing those who are serious about doing something about it can do is keep an eye on the goal and climb over the obstacles in the way one at a time. If I would have dithered and dallied though and fretted about what this doctor said and that doctor said and they weren't the top surgeons preforming this procedure successfully and didn't even believe it could be done, I probably would have lost my son. So when it comes to Iraq I don't dither and dally on the small stuff. I know that some think it is rude but it does involve the life and death of many many people.


I don't know what to say, Tracy. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:50:38 PM EST

I am in awe. Joshua is incredibly fortunate to have such parents.


: Awe stop (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:10:43 PM EST

He does have determined parents. I don't think either my husband or myself could have done it alone but we did do it together. We have had counseling a bit for my husband's anxiety/PTSD stuff when he first got home and the counselor was a little astonished that somehow in the middle of this crap we managed to get Joshua what he needed. In light of that he told us to be patient and as long as we were patient we will probably come through most anything together. This war though that involves flesh and blood and bone and not just my own but that of many others as well....it is a very hard, long, bitter road. If we start seeing some light soon and I don't see it as clearly as you others do just prop me up in the corner and pat me on the head from time to time. I'm scared to death to get my hopes up too much because this war is sadly very personal for me and affects my life very personally as well and I have had my hopes up before only to find out the road was yet five miles longer than we thought.

Have you thought of running for President? :-) (none / 0) (#23)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:11:21 PM EST

You obviously haven't read any of my (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:22:07 PM EST

previous postings pre defunding pre Democratic control days. I have to say that joining the Talkleft crowd has encouraged me to learn to use my words again in the midst of the worst frustration and stress in the world. It has been a really good thing too overall but I'm a woman with a tarnished vernacular past Edger ;). It is America though and anything is possible given enough time passing...Biden's running ;)


: I haven't, you're right. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:24:27 PM EST

I wish I had now though. ;-)

Today on NPR's Morning Edition, (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by oculus on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:12:56 PM EST

Harry Reid, advocating passage of the immigration bill with the Dem. amendments adding more liberal provisions on behalf of immigrant families, sd. "Gee Whiz," everyone knows the current immigration policy doesn't work, so vote for this bill.

Now I realize that in the previous discussions regarding "prominent" bloggers on the phone with Reid and what he may or may not have sd. or meant about Petraeus, et al., BTD sd., have you ever listened to Reid? Well, gee whiz, yes, and it didn't inspire me to push for the current immigration bill. Easier to fathom now why he couldn't win the day on defunding.


: He is genuinely a nice guy isn't he? (none / 0) (#24)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:15:00 PM EST

He's sort of like Carter, a nice guy in the wrong place at the wrong time having all the wrong things happen to him.

Yes. Threatening the funding works. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:31:44 PM EST

WTF Are You Talking About? (1.00 / 1) (#20)
by talex on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:59:08 PM EST

BS as usual. Kagro and I couldn't be any further apart on most issues. Particularly Iraq.

And Rahm's veiled threat was a good one but not one I'm sure could have been implemented. To defund the OVP would probably require a vote in which case the Repubs would have probably filibustered it even if they know Cheney is a cancer on the Party. The fact is that Cheney's lawyers found a better defense than the bogus one he retracted. Whose to say what Rahm's threat played? I'm not so sure it was the only issue considered nor the most pressing one.

And as for your silly comment andgarden it is one thing to threaten - it is quite another to make that threat become reality. Your insinuation that what Rahm did was some kind of proof that the Dems could defund the war or at least threaten to is ridiculous. First of all the Dems have already threatened to defund the war in proposed bills. Isn't that what Reid-Feingold effectively did with withdrawal dates? Withdrawal is essentially defunding and defunding is essentially withdrawal. One is just a means of achieving the other.

Secondly defunding cannot be done as I have already explained here and even Armando has not disputed what I explained. Again - any bill to defund will be vetoed and any non-bill effort to defund will leave the troops stranded. And don't say that money to bring the troops home can be had from other places. Rep.Joe Sestak, retired Navy vice admiral, and the first director of the Navy Operations Group which oversaw operational and budgetary policies, made clear in his recent floor speech the restrictions mandated by law of moving monies around for the military and within the Department of Defense. He knows what he is talking about.

<<<<>>>>

And well passed the point where any political purpose is advanced in a useful way by deliberately exaggerating the extent of intra-GOP disagreement. - Yglesias

Well that just goes to show that bloggers are not necessarily 'Strategists'. Yglesias shows that in his quote above and so did Armando yesterday in his comment that he had 'no time' to put pressure on Lugar and Voinovich.

The fact is that both Bush and the Repubs are showing signs of panic about Iraq. Bush is feverishly trying to preempt the Dems increasing pressure and the Repubs like Lugar and Voinovich who feel pressure also are trying to preempt Bush and get him to change course in some way.

That fact is that when your opposition show sign of weakness it is time to exploit and attack that weakness. Armando as an attorney should know that. And as a recovering attorney and business man and marketeer I know that also.

They all want to find a middle ground. Of course they want to find a middle ground that suits them politically. Our job is to let them stake their position and then pull them further our way. That method of negotiation is as old as man himself. But the 'brilliant' Left is unable to see that.

Yglesias says Lugar/Voinovich should not be "deliberately exaggerat[ed]". Spoken like a true 'observer'. Armando says he has "no time' to pressure Lugar/Voinovich. Spoken like a blogger and not a real 'activist' who makes time.

Carpe Diem! - (Seize the moment) is as old as as Horace and the Roman Empire.

But in order to Seize the moment one must first be able to 'recognize' the moment. And that is something the Left and bloggers like Yglesias and Armando are incapable of doing.


Then you'd better start (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:10:24 PM EST

working on your 'recognizing' skills. The 'threat' of defunding the OVP is what turned Cheney into a puppy over his ridiculous assertions.


And take the lies elsewhere. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:22:47 PM EST

Nobody is buying them here, and when people elsewhere recognize them for the lies they are they won't be buying them elsewhere either.

Defunding Iraq: Misperceptions, Disinformation And Lies:

The TROOPS are funded by regular appropriations. DOD budget. Emergency supplemental funding has nothing to do with "funding the troops".
It does buy, among other things such as logistical support from Halliburton, Parsons, and DynCorp, fuel, in theater equipment maintenance, bullets, cluster bombs, etc., etc., IOW all the "stuff" needed to continue the occupation. The troops use that "stuff" in the continuance of that occupation, and to defend themselves and stay alive (as best they can) while continuing that occupation. Defunding the occupation of Iraq and withdrawing or redeploying the troops does not hurt the troops. It helps them to stay alive.
Emergency supplemental funding is only for the occupation. When Bush says differently, or when the Democratic Leadership says differently, or when a troll here says differently.... it is a lie.
The "war" has been funded with emergency supplemental funding for years. There is plenty of money for withdrawing in regular budget without the emergency supplemental the Democrats recently passed.
War And Occupation Funding: More Cooking The Books By Bush And Pentagon?
...the only way the funding can be said to be "for the troops" is if the intention is to keep them in Iraq for many years.

Talex (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:41:12 PM EST

Yesterday you said you were optimistic. You're optimistic (sic) that with lies you'll be able to convince enough people with all these lies you repeat every day to continue occupying Iraq so that you can use it as a political platform to run against in 2008 - with zero concern for the number of US Soldiers and Iraqis who will have to die for you to be able to do that.

I too am optimistic.

The difference is that my optimism is in people. In their intelligence and their ability to see through lies.


: I'm optimistic that a war started by (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 04:14:21 PM EST

America based on a pack of already proven lies can be ended by America without a whole bunch of fanny smooching and whitewash hogwash and we can do it just because that is the only right to do as soon as humanly possible. Maybe I have too much optimism in my country but I'm going to keep on doing whatever I can do to make them live up to it.

GOP on GOP violence keeps an all-GOP Iraq 'debate' (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Ellie on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 06:04:52 PM EST

Until I see some real action happening apart from the paper waving and hooey flinging, I'm regarding this as more schtick to run out the clock until the new Fall hooey about not "politicizing" [whatever] can come out.

BFD, some Repugs are criticizing the war. (Look up the concept of Frienemies.)

All this means is the door is opening a crack to shut out the Dem foot in the door so the door can be shut more firmly. I'm betting we'll see even fewer free range, actual Dems in the discussions, never mind about pointed critics stripping back the curtains.

What we WILL see is mainstream media insist on showing all "sides" of the GOP hooey. As third wheel, we'll see the occasional toothless declawed, defanged Dem on to gum a GOP panelist.

Ideally, the Dem will be someone who'll vow to bring back those bipartisan One-Party Republican and Cheerleader times that existed nowhere in history, but that pundits swear they can remember.

I don't doubt fighting within the admin and the RNC for power. No matter how deep the fighting goes, they WILL NOT give up domination of the airwaves over it.

Next act - same as the last act (none / 0) (#11)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:55:06 PM EST

But folks who wait until after an electoral drubbing to start distancing themselves from their party's leaders don't deserve to be hailed as great independent thinkers.

Now I expect them (the Talex/Kargo X'oids) to be back accusing us of being closed minded and unwilling to debate or consider 'other' ideas for ending the occupation, including the 'idea' of continuing to fund it and keeping it going.

Forgetting all the while (purposely, probably) that those of us who have settled on stopping the funding as the best and fastest way to end it have been for years reading about, looking at, and considering every idea put forward in those years, and have finally, with all that background, come to a conclusion.

They would rather though try to convince us to set all that aside and continuing 'debating' other ways, instead of debating how and when to stop the funding and end it, finally.

Keep everyone talking so that they can keep it going?

To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Alien Abductee on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:21:46 PM EST

Kagro X shouldn't be lumped in with Talex. His thing is activism for impeachment through state and local initiatives. Or it used to be at least - I rarely read him anymore either.


I agree (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:25:08 PM EST

Kagro X is not a troll by any standard even if s/he is for impeachment.

The two bear no comparison as far as I can tell.


OK (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:41:38 PM EST

I'll take your word for it. I don't read him much either.


Except that he wrote what appears to have (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:46:49 PM EST

been an intentional disinfo piece about defunding Iraq, back on May 17.

And I have since written a general rebuttal to disinfo pieces about defunding, and BTD has put even more effort into rebutting disinfo than I have.


Yeah, well (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by Alien Abductee on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:24:03 PM EST

K's argument was pretty silly. Part of why I rarely read him any more. Though I think he's sincere in what he says, unlike you-know-who.


Maybe he was just having a day? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:27:11 PM EST

More than one (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by Alien Abductee on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:32:01 PM EST

But haven't we all.


: I get a bit weird sometimes, myself. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 04:00:07 PM EST

Well... more than a bit, to be honest...

We Can't Make It Here... (h/t to kdog) (none / 0) (#34)
by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 05:12:32 PM EST

Vietnam Vet with a cardboard sign
Sitting there by the left turn line
Flag on the wheelchair flapping in the breeze
One leg missing, both hands free
No one's paying much mind to him
The V.A. budget's stretched so thin
And there's more comin' home from the Mideast war
We can't make it here anymore
...
And that's how it is
That's what we got
If the president wants to admit it or not
You can read it in the paper
Read it on the wall
Hear it on the wind
If you're listening at all
Get out of that limo
Look us in the eye
Call us on the cell phone
Tell us all why
...
I can see them all now, they haunt my dreams
All lily white and squeaky clean
They've never known want, they'll never know need
Their sh@# don't stink and their kids won't bleed
Their kids won't bleed in the da$% little war
And we can't make it here anymore

--James McMurtry & The Heartless Bastards

Lyrics

YouTube