I know I'm going out on a cynical limb here, but I'm guessing that Obama and Clinton decided to vote 'no' on the funding bill when their consultant advisors deemed it was politically safe to do so. They realized it wasn't going to pass, no matter what. How brave and courageous they were!

Well, you know what, folks? Sh*t still stinks. My nameless/faceless DLC consultant advised me not to say that publicly.... but what the hell. It's not like I'm running for office or anything..... right?

Neither Morse nor Gruening was particularly influential Not a criticism just a fact to take into account .

Fulbright accompanied his vote for the resolution with a strident (or eloquent) statement. Which he later regretted.Rightly.

As to this vote. The right thing for the country is to force a change of policy. But not necessarily in Macy's window.

Having marched against the War one freezing Saturday in 2003 I nevertheless think that the safety-and morale- of the troops militates against a publicly announced timetable or extended public debate. I can imagine
that the commanders might prefer a withdrawal plan which is kept secret for a while. And also might prefer that the public discussion now stop since it serves as an incentive for insurgent attacks on our forces in the hopes that will influence the debate.

If I were a senator I'd be terrified of looking at those Lehrer hour photos of our casualties and having to think that I'd caused there to be more of them .Not because of the politics. Because of those deaths.

So my conclusion is it was right for HRC and Obama to vote against the funding as a way of signalling Bush that he's running out of road . But would have been wrong if they'd known their votes would have actually resulted in
the resolution's defeat.

As it was , they did the right thing.

I'm afraid you are more realist than cynic. Dammit!
Also, a minor but important correction: "realized it WAS going to pass, no matter what."

I'm shocked that only 14 of our senators voted against. How can funding the war be so much more popular in the senate than it is among the general population?

How can they just snub a majority of the population like this?

My head hurts too.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I understand that's the right's framing. I'm stuck with the fact that I agree with it. A broken clock is right twice a day.

And of course W won't permit a secret withdrawal
but when we finally withdraw almost certainly that's how it will happen . And when that
time does come Congress will have to cooperate
by not undercutting that strategy.

I do agree I would like to have seen more votes against it.

Didn't we read a comment here yesterday about how Obama was the new JFK?

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

What we are looking for is a candidate with enough backbone to make moral decision and stick with it even in the face of political catastrophe.  If the moral decision is appropriate, we will stick with the candidate.   Anyone who triangulates away the moral decision for political reasons is the sort of coward we want to be rid of.

=== Neither Hillary nor Barack had the political clout to take a leadership role on this. ===

It is a little unclear to me how a person without the clout to take a leadership role in the /Iraq War Debacle/ is qualified to be President.

sPh

Anyone who triangulates away the moral decision for political reasons is the sort of coward we want to be rid of.

Which is precisely what Hillary and Edwards did when they voted for the AUMF based on political expediency.

Politically, in many ways it would be best for the Democrats to let Bush and the Republicans own this war. If the troops are redeployed before the next election, the dems will be credited with "losing the war" and the ensuing violence in the region. That is how it will be spun by the GOP, despite the fact that the violence in the region is increasing exponentially due to the ongoing surge. The democrats seem to be incapable of clearly framing these issues.

However, morally, the only responsible course of action is for the congress to do everything within their power to end this war - and that of course includes defunding the war. I am furious with the lack of backbone displayed by the democratic leadership on this issue, in particular, the democratic presidential candidates in the Senate (with the exception of Dodd).

RogerGathman

I've read numerous comments like Whiterose's - that in reality, if you look in the poll, the American people were opposed to not funding the troops. As if this is some decisive rejoinder! There was no question of funding or not funding the troops - the question was about how to fund the troops. The only coherent strategy, once the Dems got bold and confronted the President with a timeline conditioned funding bill that he vetoed, is to openly negotiate about conditions. That some Dems might have mean things said about them during the Memorial weekend is a laughable reason for capitulating to the president. Working towards making benchmarks binding, and including a non-binding timetable should have been a bottom offer thing. There was no reason for a rush to fund. The Dems were having little nightmares about the President saying we can't afford x or we can't afford y - because the Dems are terminally stupid. The whole point of the first bill was to GET the president to that point, in which case the quick and easy reply is, the President is holding up funding for x and y because he wants to pursue the failed policy of the past. This funding bill should be about pursuing competency in creating the conditions to wind up this war. And of course the Dems could have emphasized that Bush's surge is killing more soldiers than ever before, for less reason.

But you will always have the centrist Dem types who actually support some Republican policy - in this case, the war - who hide behind the casuistry of polling numbers, and blandly hope that the Dem base will go on working for a party that stiffs them regularly. It is a sucker's game.

The only centrist Dems are Feingold and Kucinich.  The rest are right wing.  Of course, I grew up in the 60s.

Not a zero.

Worth ignoring only. 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

Quoted from Joe Klein over at Swampland:

You might say, this was a symbolic vote. It wasn't. It was a political vote. Yesterday I spoke with Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Ca.) just back from Iraq, who voted for the bill--as did a majority of Democrats who are not running for President. "Look, I would love to have cast a vote against Bush on this. We need a new strategy and I hope we can force one in September," she told me. "But I flew into Baghdad on a troop transport with 150 kids, heading into the field. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment, the armor they need. I couldn't do that."

The problem is that it's much easier to portray a "no" vote as hurting the troops than it is to explain how it's nothing of the kind. And political calculation is the norm, not the exception, in life.

I've been reading Jonathan Alter's FDR book, "Defining Moment", mainly about the first 100 days of that administration. As portrayed in the book, FDR was maddeningly ambiguous both before and after the election, preferring to preserve maneuvering space by avoiding committment. Apropos today, he was loath to agree to any joint action with Hoover on the banking crisis.

Apparently he felt both the strategic value of arriving at the height (nadir?) of a crisis, and the risk of being attached to the other party in any way. That he mainly succeeded in forging a recovery and a preventative system to avoid future crises might lead us to be less dogmatic in our prinicples, and more pragmatic about achievable actions.

What people want is a timetable for us getting out.

That's where the Dems failed -- they should have not compromised on that.  

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

Not talking about things here because some Republican might read it seems pretty silly.

Plus, Greg's post from yesterday told us that political concerns *were* taken into account. They were worried about being criticized for the vote.

Why put our heads in the sand and pretend Democratic politicians vote their conscience only? 

Seems very naive. Do you actually not believe this happens? Or believe it does happen, but we bloggers shouldn't ever talk about it? 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

Just cause Greg says so?

Lets see the statements made by either campaign.

"I voted against it cause I was worried about being criticized. The political considerations were taken into account, and I decided to vote 'no.'"

Doubtful!

So... Just cause Greg says so?

Hey. They're politicians. Politicians consider political consequences of their decisions. But if you or anyone here is going to throw out the idea that had Obama or Clinton voted their conscience they'd have voted 'yes', then they better damn well have some proof.

Consider this for a moment. Two months ago bob shrum smirkingly tried to smear edwards by saying that his co-sponsorship, support and vote for the iraq war resolution was based on political considerations. that his political advisors said he should support it even though he knew in his heart that it was the wrong thing to do.

edwards responded that shrum was wrong.

elizabeth responded saying shrum was wrong.

do you think shrum was wrong?

unless you can read minds or have real proof the contrary, yes, i find it is always best to conclude that, while politicians will consider the political consequences of their decisions, when it does finally come down to voting on an issue, then, yes, they do vote their conscience.

i believe every democratic senator that voted yesterday voted their conscience.

now. back to edwards. were john and elizabeth lying when they refuted shrum's accusation?

And Edwards has come clean, apologized, and made amends. Hillary and other DLCers continue to triangulate and listen to overpaid consultants (aka the evil voices of corporate whoreocracy) instead of their hearts.

Time to stop the bloodshed.
Now.
That's what the Dem majority was elected to do.
No way to shade that, the people want a decisive time for withdrawal, a "fully funded withdrawal," not a continuation of Dubya's war. And while I'm at it, f*ck you Holy Joe Liarman, go ahead and defect to the party where you belong and quit pretending!!

i believe every democratic senator that voted yesterday voted their conscience.

We're obviously going to need some primary challengers and soon.

Compare the freshmen votes to the others and you'll see where the party is going and I, for one, can't wait. If the Dem party is to be relevant then we need more of them with backbone and less obesiance to the military corporations.

Deaths between now and then are not reparable. This is about more than political gamesmanship in DC.

Folks, I obviously very much disagree with this post (and think the thread following pretty much proves it wrong), but it's not a troll-posting.

Please limit those to things that absolutely must be removed from the site like spam, things that are offensive, or things that are just so blatantly disrespectful that they degrade the discourse.

This is just kind of disrespectful and misses the point of my questions.

You are correct.

The Democrats still don't know how to frame the issue. Why wasn't anyone talking about how we need to be responsible with the taxpayers' money and we can't allow Bush to be spending $2 billion a week of your hard-earned cash without delivering results. If Bush can't meet the one-more-year deadline, he should step aside and hand over the reigns to someone who can. The fact is "Commander Guy" has had almost four years to accomplish the task--and unlimited sums of your money--and he hasn't gotten the job done. Congress has a responsibility to prevent the American taxpayer from being ripped off by an incompetent fool. That's all the vote was for. Protecting your pockets from Republican incompetence.

When the Gulf of Tonkin was voted on not only was there a Democratic President but the Democrats had a sizable majority in both Houses of Congress. Currently the Democrats have ony a 15 vote majority in the House and a one vote majority in the Senate, that one is Joe Lieberman. The Democrats did not have the votes to win this vote. Other Democrats, especially from Red States, also opposed this approach. No amount of foaming in the mouth changes the numbers.

Secondly, the Democrats promised not to deprive the troops of funds. It is true that Bush could find funds from elsewhere.. He will be able to come up with the money until the last day in Office regardless of what Congress does. It is not just a matter of being criticized, like on the schoolyard. It is being blamed for depriving our troops and they will not win this debate with the President, even Bush. Do most Americans want the troops out of Iraq yes, but do you think they will not turn on the Democrats for cutting off money for the troops in the field? Remember a large majority of Americans once supported the war.

Lastly, a point unintentionally made by Keith Olbermann on the "Countdown" last night. The Democrats promised not to deprive the troops of funds. Once they did that Bush just had to wait them out. This is precisely what Bush says will happen if an exact timetable is created in Iraq. The enemy will wait out the U.S. withdrawal and then attack. You may not care but it is not ridiculous point.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

God it pains me to say it . But maybe Bush is right about not setting a time table for withdrawal . If we have to make a messy withdrawal ,a la Saigon it seems pretty likely that the military will want to knowthat as long as possible before the insurgents.

Jessica Lynch was captured in part because
of the poor planning for the assault- the MPs
who should have directed traffic were in Kuwait.
I'm against doing anything which will make the
withdrawal a replica of that.

If that means Congress can't pass a bill including deadlines ,so be it . How do we square that with continuing to put pressure on Bush to get out of there ? I don't have an answer.

The closest I could find was probably more like 7th or 8th Ave and the general area of 10th St. Also, it seems to be looking north.

Well, here is a little closer, 7th and West 22nd. Can't make out the identities, however.

Wait! Wait!  8th Ave and 34th!!!  Just 2 blocks away! 

I think some mouth-foaming is entirely appropriate.

Are you OK with more people dying for a failed policy because Congress decided to once again refuse to reign in the President?

No need to answer...the question is quite loaded.

do you think they will not turn on the Democrats for cutting off money for the troops in the field?

Got Right Wing Frames?

Which Democrats have proposed cutting off money and stranding troops in the field? 

That one you can answer...

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

On the local front, yet another Minnesota father of two dead today. He was in his THIRD TOUR in Iraq.

Jane, you militaristic robot, we could have turned that troop transport around. You got a ticket home. Why don't they?

Another comment heard this afternoon on the radio from a soldier calling in, he said (are you listening coward caucus?) "The Democrats just sealed my fate. Now, I know I'm going back to Iraq. They don't get it", he said,

"This is not about politics. This is about lives being lost".

Another Iraq veteran calls in and describes watching kids being blown up. "Now, it's going to continue", he says. "It's not going to stop."

I guess it does take real soldiers to know what war is about and what more war is about -- dead troops and more dead troops.

but you didn't answer the questions I asked.

were john and elizabeth lying when they said shrum was incorrect.

I think that the blogosphere wants to discuss the political calculation of dems they don't like and when it comes to discussing the political calculation of dems they do like, they go limp.

that question was relevant to the discussion.

don't avoid it.

I notice you ignored my question to you, as well as the rest of my post. You simply restated your original comment.

One more try: 

Mouth-foaming is fine. This was a terrible outcome, and we're entitled to some foam. (Note, no mention of whether or not Dems did or did not have the votes.)

Which Democrats have proposed stranding the troops in the field? 

nothing's been proven.

implying that dems make decisions that affect our national security based on poliical calculation, i think that's bad for the party.

that's an opinion.

others think it's good for the party.

that is also an opinion.

neither opinion can actually be proved either way.

if you do have proof that shows that [implying that dems make decisions that affect our national security based on political calculation] actually helps the party, why then i'd like to see it.

I've read numerous comments like Whiterose's - that in reality, if you look in the poll, the American people were opposed to not funding the troops. As if this is some decisive rejoinder! There was no question of funding or not funding the troops - the question was about how to fund the troops.

Sorry, the political reality was that if the bill passed and was not vetoed the troops were funded. If Bush vetoed the bill the troops were not funded. That was the upshot of the bill. All the 'how' was in the bill and thus funding or not funding was the decisive factor.

Let me put it another way, if I run the red light and kill your pet, does it matter  how I ran the light or that I did?  The end result is one dead pet, whether I sped up to make the light or simply never slowed down when it turned red.

So to fund or not fund was the bottomline. All the rest was yammering and spin. Polls or no polls.

Daniel A. Greenbaum writes

The Democrats did not have the votes to win this vote.

It would seem to me that the only thing to do in this instance is vote one's conscience regardless of whether one expects to be in the majority.  When I was young, we used to sing a hymn extracted from James Russell Lowell's poem, The Present Crisis.  I think it appropriate to raise a toast this Memorial Day Weekend to those who lose fighting "the good fight".

Once to every man and nation,
Comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with false-hood,
For the good or evil side;

Some great cause, some great decision,
Offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever,
'Twixt that darkness and that light.

Then to side with truth is noble,
When we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit,
And 'tis prosperous to be just;

Very Victorian, I know.  And perhaps a little over dramatic and romantically religious, but at the core there is a sentiment worth pondering.

aMike

I like this one but I confess I'm having a hard time enjoying it:

"The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you are going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins. In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing - for the sheer fun and joy of it - to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose. You mustn't feel like a martyr. You've got to enjoy it.”

I.F. Stone

But the choice is not between a) withdrawing according to a published schedule, or b) withdrawing according to a secret schedule. If it were I might agree with you, or at least we could discuss pros and cons.

Unfortunately, the choice we are faced with is a) publicly forcing Bush/Cheney to withdraw, or b) accepting an American occupation of Iraq that will continue indefinitely and likely serve as a launching pad to invasion of other countries in the region. (Check Steve Clemons at www.thewashingtonnote.com for the latest on that bit of audacity.)

RogerGathman
Corallein, reading that Joe Klein post again made clear for me the logical bankruptcy of the pro-occupation position. So I guess I have to thank Klein for that!

The problem is, of course, the idea that it is better to drift than to plan a withdrawal. In actuality, if you don't plan how to play an endgame, it will play you. The only way that you can almost guarantee a withdrawal disaster is if you don't plan the withdrawal over a significant period of time. A year is a pretty good marker. That is why the capitulation was and is such a disaster - it was a vote for drift. The bill's design, with or without compulsory timetables, was actually the only way that a withdrawal can be effected that won't be a disaster. Drift has already had a terrible effect on making U.S. territory unsafe - the danger coming, contra Bush, not from Iraqi Al Qaeda but from the humming camps in Pakistan, gathering money and recruits due to Iraq. Drift can't but have a disasterous effect on internal politics in Iraq - without any benchmarks, every side feels that they have most to gain by being most intransigent. And, of course, by not planning the withdrawal long before it happens, the drift strategy all but asks that withdrawal be forced upon us. It is like the pro-war people think that end of this war will be a nice surprise party - hey, we love you americans, here are some bases for you to stay on and attack our neigbhors, who of course happen to be closely connected to our leadership, and we are going to have a ticker tape parade, with flowers and candies, as you march home.
So: the war will end, and if you don't plan the end of the American participation in the war, you are inviting anarchy and a disastrous exit.
Those who don't want us to 'discuss" withdrawing are like superstitious people who don't want to mention death in a sick room - or call the doctor. They are, in other words, irrational cowards. Hitching a war strategy to them is a bad bad idea.

You may well be right.

I think both Clinton and Obama have said recently that they would not de-fund the troops (easily googled). It doesn’t matter if it’s good or bad to call them on political gambits when it’s so obvious they are playing politics that everyone (almost) sees it.

Before the election that returned Dems to power, most sounded like rabid anti-war activists, though they were silent on how they would end it. But most of our celebrity representatives have been plying the myth that de-funding the war amounted to endangering troops in the field (they’ll run out of bullets!). That myth spread by most politicians and the MSM is no less pernicious or pervasive than WMD or Saddam-al Qaeda connections. Denying funding is simply a constitutional option for withdrawing authorization of a misguided or failing war and would have no effect on our troops aside from saving many of their lives.

It seems like leading Democrats have planned all along to let Bush continue running with his albatross flapping around his neck. The first bill was sent up knowing it would be vetoed, then this one giving Bush everything he wanted was crafted without debate to keep the ball in Bush’s court. So, the Dems are now the ones blocking the will of the people. Feeble attempts to cast meaningless votes only provide fodder for the anxious MSM to attack. They can replay footage of Obama, only a few weeks ago, saying he would never vote against funding because it would deprive troops of body armor and armored vehicles. Hillary’s flip-flopping on this issue is a matter of record. This vote was more politically convenient and cowardly than the original authorization for war.

How fast the mighty fall. Democrats took the reigns only months ago chanting that the people had spoken and their will be done (as I said in another post). Bush flexed and they flinched. This Congress was elected with one mandate: to end this disaster in Iraq. For whatever politically expedient strategy, they are betraying the people who put them in office.

yes. without proof otherwise, i give democrats the benefit of the doubt.

feel free to continue to assume the worst.

only just make sure you assume the worst of every democrat. not just the ones you don't like, cause then you'll just betray your petty bias.

so. when edwards keeps badgering reid and the senate to try to pass legislation that edwards knows they don't have the votes for, let us now be brave souls and think about why he says these things?

i would prefer to think it's because he believes them.

what do you think?

Nice Job.  I'm not even sure that Morse and Greuning were not influential, at least in the sense that prophets are influential.  They, especially Morse, galvanized public opinion: this is certainly a sign of influence, outside the halls of Congress as well as in it.

aMike

Yes, because obviously, the only way to withdraw 150,000 troops is in Secret.

It's because the Pentagon has secretly trained all of its support staff to be ninjas.

They will move like the wind through the grass, a presence barely felt.

Fifty ton tanks will simply seem to vanish. Behind the barricades of the green zone will only be a few stray cats and leftover memos.

We will move them all out by stealth fighters and noiseless black helicopters. Our stealth bombers will hover overhead at night and press the reverse button, sucking up armaments and personnel.

So cunning is America's secret withdrawal, that we'll take a hundred thousand private contractors ranging from Halliburton to Blackwater, and another 30,000 remnants of the coalition of the willings 20 or so countries.

Yes, America's secret departure will be easily coordinated with dozens of other attached parties.

Everyone but the collaborators, because anyone foolish enough to trust America deserves to hang from a lamppost with their genitals in their mouths. The Joke's on them, but I'm sure they'll take it in good spirits and in ten years, we'll all have a good laugh about it.

I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing with you.

The problem is Congress doesn't have a strong enough pair of reins (yet) to actually pull Bush up short. They didn't have the votes and while people are sick of the war, there's no public consensus on exactly how to make it go away.
What we're left with is the plan I think the Dems are using: bled out the political authority of the Administration through a thousand cuts(U.S. attornies, pre-war intelligence and all the other rocks Congress is trying to flip over).
Remember, as grotesque as it is, the real war is in Washington. Iraq is the sideshow.

I got to say, this is the sort of political calculations that have managed to lead the Democrats to disaster again and again over the last few decades.

Perhaps less strategy, more principles.

Who exactly is our enemy in Iraq? Honestly, I'm not sure we have an enemy. We're sort of a large police force, trying (unsuccessfully) to restore order. If we withdraw, no one will attack us. The only risk is that disorder will increase. However, if the primary impetus for the current disorder is our presence, then maybe disorder will decrease. That really is the question now: is our presence doing anything to improve order or is it actually providing a stimulus to the disorder?

LOL I have been brainwashed? Of course the troops would get their money. Just as a no vote would not bring a single soldier home, or have you been brainwashed? Bush can find the money in the budget to keep them in Iraq until January 20, 2009, 12 Noon.

That said, the vote wa for funding for the troops. This idea that anyone but the looney Left would not blame the Democrats for trying to cut money from the troops I invited them to see the budget batte between Newt Grinrich and Bill Clinton. Bush may be an idiot but he has the cards. He also has the votes.

You may not be brainwashed but the math is a bit rusty. With Tim Johnson out and Lieberman clearly going to vote Yes the Democrats did not and do not have a majority in the Senate. They were going to lose.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Thanks.

Yes, assuming George Bush is to Iraq as red light is to stop/go.

OK, well let me break it down for you like that. Stop = Bush veto. Go= Bush signs bill.

=== Now in September, when more Republicans will be ready to bail on Bush, it will be time for the Democrats to really squeeze the Republcians in the Congress. ===

First of all, as Duncan Black says: not gonna happen. When September rolls around Bush and the Republicans in general are going to grant themselves another Friedman Unit. 2.6 more FUs in fact: the Republicans will only abandon their support for the war the day after Hillary is inaugurated.

Second, even if your scenario does come to pass the result will be to create the appearance that the Republicans control the Congress and the Democrats even from a position of minority. Strike that: they won't create that appearance - that will be the fact.

sPh

Neither Hillary nor Barack had the political clout to take a leadership role on this.

Well, there's political clout, and then there's political clout.  Leadership is about getting others to follow you.  It can be by convincing them with eloquent explanations, pulling them along by gathering momentum, garnering enthusiasm for your point of view by stellar example; to name a few ways of "taking a leadership role."  There is nothing about Hillary or Barack that precludes them from having a leadership role except their own tendencies to test the wind before taking a stand.

If you want an example of completely unearned political clout you don't have to look any further than Rudy G, who capitalized on some photo-ops after 911 and is hailed as a great leader (tough on crime, tough on terror!)  by his party. 

There is plenty of room for more leaders in Congress.  Leading does not mean disagreeing with, or confronting Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid; rather it means helping them.  I don't see much of that going on in all this posturing.

Jan

What we are looking for is a candidate with enough backbone to make moral decision and stick with it even in the face of political catastrophe.  If the moral decision is appropriate, we will stick with the candidate.   Anyone who triangulates away the moral decision for political reasons is the sort of coward we want to be rid of.

 I know you didn't mean it this way, but what you have said is a perfect description of George W Bush as far as his loyal 28% is concerned.

I would prefer to have a leader who makes a decision based on all appropriate information, (including morality), but who can revisit and rethink decisions when new facts or circumstances appear.

Jan

The DC Dems Done Good:

First, the DC Dems produced a bill they knew Bush would veto and did. That was the one with the benchmarks and timetables.

All along, they knew that benchmarks, no matter how precise and definitive, can be seriously torqued and twisted by the Republicans as 'cut & run,' the stuff of 'surrender monkeys.' Moreover, they know that our military in Iraq can be critically 'disadvantaged' during the withdrawal phase by an unfair administration who will employ Democratic timetables and benchmarks as the root cause of any losses suffered during that withdrawal.

The Republicans are poised to employ Democratic timetables and benchmarks as the root cause of any losses suffered by our troops over the next year and some, during drawdown and withdrawal.

By avoiding the pitfalls of benchmarks and phony timetables in the revision, the Dems then thrust the entire Irakatak back into Bush's court and said, in effect, "Here, you got the funds; you got the full responsibility. You will NOT be using us to blame for your mistakes. The ball is in your court, buster. Now deal with it. Any mistakes, and you will hear from us."

Now, Bush is FORCED to deal with the mess and the drawdown, and for any mistakes, only the Dems will make political hay. In addition, our troops are protected by the Democrats in DC from any vicious attempt by Bush & the Torture Party to use them as political pawns in the year and some ahead. It was brilliant footwork, on the part of the DC Dems, and they wrung out the maximum benefit that anyone could possibly wring out the funding bill.

And note that the 'split' between the leadership and rank and file was also worked exquisitely to advantage: The DC Dem leadership and frontrunners voted against the bill, keeping their gloves pure white and unsullied, so that the Republicans could not even use total capitulation as their quacking point memo.

This move was so brilliant, actually, that even our long-distance opposition, Moqtada al-Sadr, came out of the woodwork to squawk about the absence of withdrawal timetables, which he needed to have in advance so that he could plan his attacks on our troops accordingly. Now he is directing peace talk to Iraqi Christians and Sunnis. The DC Dems protected our troops, and the DC Dems gave what one should always give to terrorists and thugs: Nothing.

I like that. Moqtada gets nothing but bullets. I can survive that.

And all during this, the DC Dems had to endure a base that was screeching at them from the bleachers. They endured well, I think. They got backbone.

This is just my take on the events, but one thing for sure: I will not call the current crew of DC Dems spineless. For them to get through the last campaigns as well as they did, despite the illegal voter frauds perpetrated on them by the Republicans during those elections, shows clearly that the Democratic crew in DC, in both houses, are far from spineless.

They deserve our praises, not our shrieking. Theirs was a First Class act, exquisitely crafted. As a force, the DC Dems are impressively formidable. May they continue.

were john and elizabeth lying when they said shrum was incorrect...

 that question was relevant to the discussion...don't avoid it.  OK!

Oh, come on.  We all evaluate what we hear as truth or untruth all the time, and don't depend on ESP to do it.  If you honestly think that you must accept every uttered word as truth because you cannot see into the mind of the speaker, and therefore cannot know that they are disingenuous, how do you evaluate anything?  John and Elizabeth may very well know that John did evaluate his options, but in the end voted his conscience.  Does that mean they lied?  What a silly exercise!

I promise you that when I say that Alberto Gonzales has lied through his teeth in his testimony to Congress I claim no talent at mind-reading.  His statements contradict themselves as well as reality as I know it.  The only way he is not lying is if he himself is so deluded that he thinks that if he says it, it must be true.  If the latter is so, does that make him honest? 

If Bush, like Nixon, believes that if the President does it, it must be legal; does that make him a law-abiding citizen?

Your point is that we should not try to evaluate our leaders because we might point out a negative characteristic (and who are we to evaluate since we cannot look into their souls?) for fear that the negative would be picked up by the other side. 

 Sorry, if that is the case we may just as well all go home.

Jan

Yes, I’m bashing the Democrats as a group here, which I have not done much before. Most of them swept into office as a group because the country was resolved on one issue; ending the Iraq War. They are now punting on Iraq, and that is shameful. It is not just Hillary and Obama who must navigate Golis’ question. We all have to decide whether to “vote” with our principles or politically?

Politic expediency is always about either compromise or postponement of desired actions. On great issues like this, neither is an answer. I’ve listened to the pragmatic reasons for the Dems to be patsies to Bush for five years now. But like the war, it is always argued that we wait a while longer and give a little (or a lot) more.

Forget the Republican-controlled Congress. The Dems as a group have acquiesced at every step: Give the President new powers like Patriot I and II. Wait for Iraqi elections and Constitutions. Create new bureaucracies consolidating executive power. Support the troops, give them time to win. Ignore the torture and spying and rendition. Wait until we can train the Iraqis forces to stand up so we can stand down. Codify denial of due process and habeas corpus. Give the surge time.

That time has passed. Within weeks of 9/11, it was obvious that Bush would conflate terrorism with whatever imperial and dictatorial agenda he wanted to pursue and Congress, completely aware of this, has not denied him a thing. It is time the Dems stopped this. The Dems are the only hope for ending this disastrous and horrific war. They only will when the country stands up and bashes them into doing it.

Excellent point. That was my layman's understanding, too. The constitution grants congress the right to authorize and fund war. If it withdraws funding, the executive would be violating its constitutional limits by juggling budgets to keep funding it. What do you think happens if the president did that anyway? How do you think congress would respond?

That's my whole point.

The three questions asked above are a silly exercise.

If john and elizabeth says he voted his conscience, i believe them.

if obama and clinton voted their conscience on the supplemental, then i believe that as well. which is why it think this whole discussion is crock of poo.

what i also believe is that suggesting edwards makes politically motivated statements is going to upset the same people who will make the same suggestions about other candidates.

and they won't see the hypocrisy there at all.

that is the entire foundation of the three questions above.

rhetorical conjectual considerations.

and i can see people don't like it when those considerations and those three questions are applied to edwards.

Now, Bush is FORCED to deal with the mess and the drawdown, ..... In addition, our troops are protected by the Democrats in DC from any vicious attempt by Bush & the Torture Party to use them as political pawns...

Bush has never been 'forced' to deal with anything other than fine tuning his PR, scaring Americans, concocting lies, breaking laws be they national or international, and rearranging his shrinking coterie of political stooges and lackeys.

The troops are unfortunately pawns of a criminally negligent and failed policy which awaits only the final spin on who is to blame for the fiasco.

Following the polls, Bush has gained 3 points or more in popular opinion since the Dems caved.  Before then, Bush had been pushed to his lowest limit ever.  Bush has to be in the low 20s.  For once the Dems were on the right track, but they caved.  They caved.  The autocrats respect his success.  They do not respect the Dems who caved.

That you don't care about winning just being righteous is fine. It seems a bit of a waste of time.

Yeah, well maybe the people who will die in Iraq between now and September deserve a little fucking righteousness from us.

It's the least we can do. 

I understand your belief that the Dems are playing a long term game and it takes courage to stick to what looks like a complete folding under pressure. I agree that this is a conscious strategic ploy, but it is still a dodge. And they are not just ignoring their squawking base but 70 or 80% of America. It is this strategy that is playing into Bush’s hands, whereas, standing up to him and demanding an end to the war is what the country wants.

It's true that people have been naturally opposed to Congress doing what it is allowed and required under the constitution by withdrawing funds because of the way it has been framed. But Democrats should have been getting the message out that Congress has authority over war (they authorize and can un-authorize), and de-funding is nothing more than telling the President that they are ending it. Of course, it isn’t that simple and it is always political hardball when branches and parties clash. But the Dems have propped up the idea that de-funding is treasonous because it endangers troops in the field because they were politically afraid to cross Bush.

I did read the NYT article. They're discussing potential possibilities that perhaps they might draw down to 100,000 before the '08 presidential election, maybe. It reminded me of dozens of identical articles over the years. Some unnamed WH official says that the strategy will change some little bit at some time in the future, just give us more time. They “conced that they have just bought a few months.” The entire war has proceeded on buying a few months, then a few more months , then more. They will stall now until Petraeus reports in September that, yes, the surge did not achieve what we hoped, so if we make a smaller footprint and train Iraqis to stand up…blah, blah, blah.

But even Cheney has admitted, with a throb in his throat and a tear in his eye, that the war must end someday. Of course, withdrawal from the battlefield always must be done carefully as potshots will be taken by some when backs are turned. But insurgent forces fighting to end the occupation will rejoice when we leave. They will carry our bags to the plane. Our generals have gone along with more insanity from Bush than I would have thought, but they are not going to endanger their men for some future Republican political triumph. Arguing that we have to stay to protect the troops is not much different than the argument that we have to stay or our troops will have died in vain.

Bush’s incompetence has already killed thousands of ours, hundreds of thousands of theirs, wounded and mentally harmed tens of thousands of ours, created millions of refugees and destroyed Iraq and cost us trillions over the long term. What could he do during a withdrawal that would counterbalance that? Nothing is going to discharge Bush‘s ownership of this disaster.

Iran-Contra comes to mind, but in that case the expenditures were not visible. Iraq would be overt, thus unsustainable if de-funded.

However, there would be the choice of using remaining funds to depart, or using them to stay, playing budget "chicken". (If no orders to draw down were issued, there would in fact be troops with no food, fuel or ammo, eventually.)

if your focus is on ending the war.

and you're talking about the people who were voted into office to do so. (which is what the person i just responded to was talking about!)

then you are not actually talking about clinton or obama.

riddle me this, batman.

if you want to end the war, what's your main concern?

parsing the words and intentions of frontrunners who voted correctly.?

or votes in the senate and the legislators who voted incorrectly?

thinkin' about it?

i'll give you a second.

DUH!

You asked why Golis posted about Clinton and Obama and cscs answered because they are front-running presidential candidates (those you mentioned are not). Stewieeee! I think it is you who is parsing (Dems as a group, Osama and Hillary, those elected to end the war?).

The only tool the Dems have to end Bush’s war in Iraq is, ultimately, de-funding. They decided  that, for whatever reason, they will not oppose funding for the war. I believe they decided this some time ago based on their promotion of the "endangering troops" myth. That is not what they ran on and is not the wish of their constituents and is not a moral position.

You don’t seem to get that this was a done deal. Obama and Hillary only voted against funding, which they have both said they would not do, when it meant nothing. It is that simple.

no. they voted for a change of course and redeployment out of iraq.

and the new dems who ran on ending the war, voted to continue the war as is.

if the new dems vote 'no' as well, that only puts more pressure on clinton and obama.

all this logic is just too damn convenient for my tastes. when they vote incorrectly as they did last year on the kerry proposal, they may be rightfully criticized. and then when they vote correctly.... BAH!!! HUMBUG!!

if people want to be cynical, if that's what they choose to be, you can find a politicized reason for any and every vote under the sun. for any statement ever made.

If i was so inclined to do so, i could ask how much of this statement by john edwards:

‘‘Washington has failed America.’’

is political?

how much of it is what he honestly believes?

is there a balance between the two?

all i'm trying to point out here is that i am not inclined to do so, and i think it's pretty obvious what my opinion would be of someone who was inclined to do so.

about any democrat.

that doesn't mean head in sand.

that doesn't mean stop criticizing when people make the wrong statements or vote incorrectly.

what that means is that there is NOTHING EVER TO BE GAINED FROM MAKING GUESSES AT OTHER PEOPLE'S MOTIVATIONS!

that is unless you have proof.

i pointed this out twice upthread.

shrum said edwards's vote on the IWR was political. edwards denied it. i think shrum is full of crap.

the only other difference between me and anyone else here is that i also think golis is full of crap to imply the same set of accusations.

sue me.

give me a 0.

just to answer the questions.

1. What's the right moral decision?
According to one's conscience. The Democratic Party will always remain large enough to contain a difference of opinion.

2. What's the right political decisions?
Who cares? Feel free to worry about that all you want. Tie yourself up in knots of confusion.. If your head hurts, that's your problem.

3. What's the right balance of 1 and 2 (and how do they influence each other)?
See answer to no. 2.

=== You really can't separate the political from the decisions politicians make ===

Bush and Cheney give, and have given since 2000, speech after speech after speech about how they never look at polls and always make decisions based on their strong "principles and beliefs about what is Right" and this meme is woven into the traditional media's narrative about the Bush/Cheney Administration. No "politics" about W; he is all principle all the time.

Yet during the 2006 election Bush referred all questions from the traditional media about whether or not the Republicans might lose Congress to Karl Rove, who was always depicted as sitting in his office surrounded by stacks of detailed polling data, which he didn't need anyway because he had it all memorized. If W never looks at polls, why does his senior and closest political advisor sit in an office stacked to the ceiling with polling data?

Of course, the traditional media never picked up on this contradiction.

sPh

Do you believe that neither Hillary nor Obama took political considerations into account when casting their vote?

leading Congress and the Senate is totally different from leading the nation, otherwise congressional and senatorial experience would be a constitutional requirement for President and it is not.

You don't have to be a philosophy major to be baffled by this logic...

I believe the point to be taken is that voting on a measure after it has been shown not to pass seems politically calculating, a stereotype these candidates, particularly Clinton, fall into to often. It is the nature of the legislative branch to trap its members into this sort of situation, but it just looks ridiculous to the average voter. If these Senators want to be President, they should ACT Presidential, even if that means being a little boneheaded and taking an adamant stand.

Thanks, OGD, I'm going to remember this:

I like pie ...

Jan

I hear you and just have to agree to disagree. I will say the “clocks are slower in Baghdad” thing pushed by Cheney and the generals is funny. I know, things take more time in the chaos and anarchy we’ve created. It’s not “mission accomplished” now but a long hard slog. Could it be we are bogged down in a quagmire?

In regards to bringing our troops home, what does it matter if Baghdad runs on melted Salvador Dali clocks? Time management has been their game (as in managing to get more time) and this is just another plea for another Friedman Unit. It’s like saying we can’t stop fighting because we’re in a war, or we would gladly change war strategies but our enemy won’t cooperate.

I think it is Congress who is running out of time. You have a lame duck president going into an election year. Do you really think Congress is going to investigate, charge or impeach anyone for crimes, some already adjudicated or made public, in the next six or eight months and end the war, too? If they do not confront the whole unitary executive totalitarianism, what kind of precedent has been set? What kind of damages will then be put to the Democrat's account?

And I agree with most of your points, too. I’m under no illusion that any actions will have our troops out of Iraq in less than a year or two. Once the decision is made, though, our operational strategy changes and there would probably be less engagement. Still, the longer we wait to make that decision, which must be made someday, the longer still to end our occupation. Every day delayed, is another day of war and more deaths. I think that is a realistic way to look at it.

The goal of those who sponsored this war was to impose our will on the Middle East. By any measure, we failed at that objective years ago, but withdrawal would only admit this failure. Therefore, we must keep on keeping’ on. Bush was never going to negotiate an end to this war with the Democrats.

Funding was only a non-issue because the Dems took it off the table (just like impeachment) even before taking office. Again, it is not about how much money is left in the pentagon coffers so much as a mechanism, to use your term, for de-authorization. De-funding has been used many times in the past to great effect. One option Congress has is to “prohibit funding for existing or prospective deployments.”

Your description of the Democrats’ condition might be right, Only a few weeks ago, Pelosi was bellowing about a new sheriff in town or some such thing. Now they look like the abused dog that runs under the table when Bush twitches. We have completely lost representative government, at least representation of the people. I think that six years of criticizing their lack of patriotism and cajones (by selfish cowards, no less) has been internalized by the Dems. I could be wrong and hope I am. I don’t know the definitive answer to cleaning up this historic mess, but I don’t think the answer is more politics.

Thanks, amike.

Indeed Morse was influential.

Was Fulbright, the fellow that said he supported segregation as the price of being in the Senate, more influential? Who mattered more in the end?

I frankly would have never heard of Gruening except for his vote against the Vietnam War.

Both Morse and Gruening paid the usual political price for their votes. Fulbright stayed in the Senate as one of the leading segregationists.

There are some prices far too high to pay. The cost to the country was enormous.

Best, Terry

To: Don Key  @ May 27, 2007 - 2:08pm

Ah, we do agree. We are getting to the same point by different means. Absolutely: The DC Dems MUST "confront the whole unitary executive totalitarianism," as you put it.

So, what they have to do, to pull this off, is to know their talents, assign them their research, and their reports go to the coordinators, and the coordinators collate, and the unfinished product goes through analysis and a project 'engineer' will recommend materials, design & priorities and the scheduler will find the fastest, most effective means and venues by which to carry them out. Then the DC Dems make the choices for and on behalf of the country. And their communications people will show us the product and tell us how it works for us, instead of against us.

What I am seeing, however, from the DC Dems, is that their researchers' inquiries are getting a lot of paper flurries, with white-outs and a blizzard of snowjobs, and they are driving straight into the stonewall. This is happening because each & every agency is infiltrated or entirely taken over by the perpetraitors or their Kool-Aid fanatix. Thus, the DC Dems cannot even get the DoJ to move on, say, a warrant.

What really scares me is that the DC Dems should have known this is the way it is going to be, well before they were elected. They should have known this back in November 2000. But they did not know this on February 5, 2003, when x-General Colin Powell embarrassed himself (and us) in front of the entire United Nations. I get this ugly feeling many of them are still asking, "Are they really that bad?"

I think this horrible feeling is shared by a lot of us on this page. Now, while I have been an apologist of sorts, for the DC Dems, on this page, in matters of process, effectiveness and so on, and on, I note, as pretty much all of us on this page have, that not a single DC Dem has come out with my talking points on their behalf.

So, I am asking, "Did their communications person pass away last week?" Or: "Did they put all their reasoning into a blender and set it to 'Purée'?" Or: "Are we supposed to slaughter a goat and read its entrails for the portents?" Throw dice? Conduct a séance? How are we going to know whassup?

Now, Josh's stand-in, Steve Benen, has just advised us the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence report, on the White House ignoring warnings about Iraq in 2003, was released on Friday afternoon, just before this long weekend. But I don't see an url for it. Probably, it doesn't have one.

I would like us to have a look at this new work of the DC Dems, because then I can put it on a Petri dish to see if it has any germs in it or if it has been sanitized for George's bipartisan protection. This report will give us all a more intimate view of how the researchers of the DC Dems are actually doing their work -- and their thinking.

In specific: If this report does not contain the concept that, upon reconstruction, a vibrant expanded national oil company in Iraq might have little expertise for the oil markets and will command enough leverage to actually crash the world price of crude oil in its attempt to earn greater cash flow, then the report does not contain all the data that it should. We need to know this.

If the report does not contain that concept, then the DC Dem Senators & researchers have been taken for a ride, and we're in big trouble. They might not know what the stakes are. If they don't know this, we should be very alarmed (and I will eat my words of explanation above). They should be asking why CIA always gets a boatload of oil company managers who always get CIA to predict higher prices and big security threats. That's what they did in the 1970s & 80s, to feed OPEC, the USSR and the Torture Party. So, an action that proved to them otherwise was rolled out in early 1986.

It is most difficult to locate CIA's reference to Bush's near-bankruptcy in 1986, due to the collapsed oil price. The closest they come to it is in their public access doc: Duping the Soviets: The Farewell Dossier  by Gus W. Weiss. (See index here.) Deep in this story of disinformation, CIA describes the event that bankrupted  Bush & the USSR in this manner: "Two events beyond presidential control dovetailed with NSDD 75. The Federal Reserve's restrictive monetary policy of the early 1980s led to a fall in gold and primary product prices, sources of Soviet foreign exchange. And the discovery of Alaskan North Shore oil contributed to the 1986 fall in petroleum prices, cutting the revenues not only of OPEC but also of the USSR." This is all that CIA says about what collapsed the USSR.

Cute, huh? This is like saying the earth's orbit around the sun contributed to a good agricultural return last year. And it doesn't mention that the USSR sold most of its gold between 1986 and 1989. If the DC Dems cannot figure out why CIA puts the story out like this, if they cannot connect these dots, then they do not know enough. If this is not in their report, as to what intel got Bush to snow the US, then they might not know Bush and his game well enough to confront "the whole unitary executive totalitarianism," as you describe it so accurately.

Are they that bad? These Torture Party guys are worse than all the nasty articles on them put together and stuffed in a blender set to 'Torture.' They are so bad, even Ronald Reagan didn't like them. So, I hope the DC Dems have a brain and will love our country enough to use it for and on behalf of all of us. Soonest.

Bush played the fear card (what a shocker) and the Dems folded. So what is next? We need to divest ourselves and our Congress of the euphemism, "We did it for the troops." That politeness must be exposed for what it now is. Those big bad dollars for the war are not destined to benefit our soldiers. Never were. The "war" in the name of the troops (read paradoxical injunction) has been funded to renew our subscription to the occupation and to inject capital into the pockets of the profiteers. "For the troops" is the hook. Soldiers are hardly the beneficiaries of war. We don't need Congresspersons to be so "polite" to their constituents at a time when one message, not two, needs to be sent: STOP THE LIE that gave impetus to the justification for war and occupation in the first place.

The people get it. Give them credit. The impeachment of Dick Cheney is the message that Congress needs to send to the President to stop this madness and to bring our soldiers home.

<guffaw></guffaw>

aMike

Something like confusing Viagra with Vitagrow, and having the one causing an appendage to turn green, and the other making a weeping willow throw its branches to the sky in ecstasy?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Let me get this straight. As I recall the history:

August 7, 1998 Terrorists blow up the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

August 21, 1998 American cruise missiles pounded sites in Afghanistan and Sudan Thursday in retaliation for the deadly bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya

December 19, 1998 President Clinton is impeached by the House of Representatives for lying about receiving oral sex outside of marriage

2007: American forces, sent to Iraq in numbers too small to establish law and order and to secure its borders, suffer more than 3,000 deaths and thousands injured. They are provided with barely adequate body armor, and vehicles which cannot withstand enemy attack. There is no scenario whereby America will expend less than two trillion dollars on active combat expenses and ongoing care for horribly injured service personnel. The chief barrier to Iranian expansion, Saddam Hussein, is removed without having a regional counterforce created in his place. There is no scenario whereby America can establish its most recent purported goal, a democratic society in Iraq, without a commitment many times the size of its present commitment for at least a decade--which the American public will not tolerate. The only possible explanation of our current policy is that George W. Bush wants his successor to be in office when the last American leaves Iraq.
And impeachment is off the table.
I am not as smart as many of the contributors here. Please explain to me the thinking of the House Democrats.

No, that is not what Blackwater is for. I can't tell if you are just being angry or actually trying to address the means of withdrawal.

Bush should not be called an a*sh*le, as the anus has at least one useful function. Nevertheless, the tirades about everything being driven by war profiteers do not actually accomplish anything, either in working out how to withdraw or for domestic politics.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Be careful of the salt pooter.

Bunk. What's more likely is the coward caucus is going to dither so long that the Republicans, the White House, in Congress or both will announce the major troop withdrawal on THEIR election timetable and triangulate themselves right back into the White House in 2008 and this leftie might just vote for them out of pure disgust with the Democratic Party.

Leaders LEAD and I can't remember the last time the American people have seen a Democrat leading in action.

I think Roger's analysis is correct here. Whiterosebuddy's analysis seems to be based on the presumption that if the Democrats and Bush had gone toe to toe in the press for several weeks on the question of which side was responsible for holding up the funding - Bush or the Congress - Bush would have won the debate. This despite the fact that the public overwhelmingly favors benchmarks and a timetable for withdrawal, and was looking to the Democrats to force this policy change. It occurs to me that Democrats have so internalized an attitude of "we can't win" deafeatism and self-pity, that they don't know how to play the game when they are ahead.

Democrats passed a funding bill, and Bush vetoed it. At that point it was Bush who was withholding funds from the troops. He was withholding those funds because he was more interested in shielding his disastrously failed war policies from reasonable oversight and accountability than in taking care of the troops he claims to support. These oversight and accountability measures were supported overwhelmingly by the public. So I really don’t understand why Democrats didn’t press the fight here, put some faith in the public’s continued support, and force Bush to be the one to blink. The Republicans were one the run. They had Republican legislators marching down to the White House to lay down the law to Bush and tell him he was killing them and their 2008 chances. Why back off now? Why not continue to deepen and exploit the cracks in the Republican front? Why not continue to make the point that Bush was holding the safety of our troops hostage to a policy that the public has already decisively rejected?

The independent voter takeaway from this episode will be simple: Democrats caved. The voters gave the Democrats the legislative branch of government in order to do something about the runaway executive branch and its war, but Democrats failed to deliver. When the time to face down the White House presented itself, Democrats folded. The outcome of this episode only reinforces all of the old doubts about the Democrats: that they are weak and diffident, and lack the right stuff to lead. Bush was willing to go to the brink to defend his policies, and Democrats weren’t.

I believe most Democrats in Congress sincerely want to end the war. But the party's message and strategy are being compromised by two competing internal factors: first, there are some people in the party who claim they are interested in ending the war, but don't really want to do it. They are only interested in throwing a few crumbs now and then to their antwar base. Second, there are party strategists who might be somewhat interested in ending the war eventually, but not nearly so much as they are interested in extending this unpopular war now so they can use it to run against Republicans in 2008.