Iraq War: The Long View
Lots in the news today about Democratic tactical maneuvering (translation: "infighting") in Congress, re: the war:
- Senate Democrats (translation: "Biden") want to pass a measure that sunsets the 2002 AUMF.
- House Blue Dogs have stymied Mutha's plan to restrict funding contingent on meeting readiness benchmarks.
- Progressive bloggers are pitted against each other, arguing the best way to proceed.
Let's agree that historians will give this episode a simple paragraph their narrative of the times. It'll go like this:
- "Public opinion turned against the war. As a result, the Democrats took over Congress. However, the president prevailed because he was the Commander in Chief and there was not much the Legislative branch could do except shut off the money...or impeach the Chief Executive neither of which the Democrats were strong enough, united enough, nor resolute enough to do. Furthermore, none of the Democratic or Republican candidates for president was able to capture the public's imagination about what to do on this one, most important issue. So the war droned on for two more years, ruining lives and families at home and weakening the nation's standing around the world."
What's more, I'd say that the last sentence of your narrative may describe a "best case" outcome.
I think Matt Stoller is reading to many of his own press clippings.
It's numbers, pal. Plain and simple. Can't impeach, certainly can't convict and remove -- still not enough numbers. Anyone bitching about the Dems not getting anywhere is buying a GOP talking point.
I know you know better, but I'm tired of hearing it. Nothing happens in the Senate unless there is some GOP + Lieberman (I-Idiot) support.
Reid, Shumer and Emanuell are politico's first, and never held themselves out to be statesmen. They obviously can count.
the last sentence of your narrative may describe a "best case" outcome.
Can you spell "I-R-A-N?"
Reid, Shumer and Emanuell are politico's first, and never held themselves out to be statesmen. They obviously can count.
As can I. But allow me the following sports analogy: Do the Dems want to play half-court basketball forever? By leaving Feingold on the bench, the hardwood court is much, much smaller -- and they're playing too much defense.
Another analogy: Because the Dems are being so cautious, the "middle position" between them and the Republicans is way far to the right of where public opinion is. They should stake out a position like Feingold's because it will move the "middle position" much closer to where the people are.
Yes, yes, I know: Bill Clinton has said the Dems should find "the middle position" of their own party first. But I think this is a time for bolder action than that -- there's a war on, remember?
I'll say it again: future generations will look back at us and scratch their heads: "What the hell were they thinking?"
You're right, Ara.
Democrats should force a vote on legislation tying funding to readiness to prevent Bush from completely breaking the National Guard, Army and Marines. That's not "micromanagement" or tying the CinC's hands in any way they shouldn't be tied.
And Democrats should force a vote on what the president has authorization to use military force for, since the original authorization is now moot.
They look like pussies. Still.
Apparently, Murtha (and his proposal) took a real beating because ... he didn't stop to garner internal support before going public with it. That's too bad because it's the best proposal yet for "respecting the troops" while ending the war.
If it were up to the Republicans (which, in a way, it still is) they'd send the troops into battle naked with a Bowie knife between their teeth; then, when they need medical care, send them to Walter Reed where they'll have to face roaches and other filth.
It's still all about saving George W. Bush's face. That's all.
Murtha needs to learn to play his cards closer to his vest (IOW, STFU) but he's too old to learn that. The idea is sound though.
It is quite breathtaking that Republicans still see themselves as more supportive of the military in general and the soldiers more specifically while we all watch Bush & Co destroy them all to try to save their own legacies. One wonders what Bush will have to do to the troops before everyone figures out who supports whom.