Fractured: What the Dems Did on Iraq, What They Could've Done, What It Means

[babylonsister]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/7699

Fractured: What the Dems Did on Iraq, What They Could've Done, What It Means
by RJ Eskow | May 25 2007


First, let's dispense with the nonsense once and for all. If Democrats like Joe Biden and John Murtha want to reinforce the notion that setting withdrawal deadlines is somehow "abandoning our troops," there's a simple way to fix that. Just insert a paragraph like this into your bill: "Troops shall be fully provided with all necessary resources while in the field of battle, and must be withdrawn from combat zones before being deprived of said resources." See? That wasn't hard.

Why didn't they do that this week? I can only come up with two possible explanations. The first is they cut a deal. Maybe these Dems negotiated with GOP legislators, perhaps with the best of intentions, to revisit the issue in September. The other explanation is that they're so terrified of being labeled "cut and run" that, even with more than 60% of voters behind them, they're afraid to take a stand.

Neither explanation is flattering. If they cut a deal, they did so with a group that has consistently broken such agreements in the past and is likely to do so again. If they're simply afraid, then they've let down the troops, the Iraqis, and the American people out of weakness.

If there's another reason for their actions, now is the time to start talking. But, please, no more words like this from Rep. Murtha:

"There is a point when the money for our troops in Iraq will run out, and when it does, our men and women serving courageously in Iraq will be the ones who will suffer, not this president."

With all due respect, Mr. Murtha, if I can write language to fix this problem then you, with your years of Congressional experience, can too.

more...

[azurnoir]

1. Can you write language that will stop a veto?

The bill that got passed was the one the pukes did not pass last year. So ask why would the pukes not vote to fund the war?
Could be to create a political lose-lose for the Dems?
If they had sent it back unchanged Bush would have vetoed and vetoed it and vetoed it.
The funds for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan do not come and can not from the general military budget.
Next September is the what should be looked at, now we know how long things can be stretched.

edited to add the reaction here is the repuke goal, Congress did not give them what they wanted, but we are.

[babylonsister]

4. What 'magical' event do you think will happen in September?

Petraeus was well chosen; he's not about to admit defeat so, as Kerry and Feingold said, the reviews could just go on and on until * is done, which I think is their plan.


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/petraeus-september/

Petraeus: September Report On Escalation Will Not Say ‘Anything Definitive’

Offering another sign that the administration plans to continue its escalation of the war in Iraq into 2008, U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus now says that he will not have “anything definitive” to say about the war in his September review.

On April 26, Petraeus told reporters that “in early September” he “would provide an assessment of the situation in Iraq with respect to our mission and offer recommendations on the way ahead.” But in an interview with CNN reporter Jane Arraf for IraqSlogger, Petraeus says, “Come September, I don’t think we’ll have anything definitive in September (although) certainly we’ll have some indicators on the political side in Iraq.”

Other recent signs that Bush is planning a long-term escalation:

– Last week, the Pentagon “notified more than 35,000 soldiers and Marines to be prepared to deploy to Iraq beginning this fall, a move that would allow commanders to maintain the ongoing buildup of troops through the end of the year if needed.”

– The New York Times reported in late April, “The timelines are now discussing suggest that the White House may maintain the increased numbers of American troops in Iraq well into next year.”

– In early March, the Times reported that Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the day-to-day commander of American forces in Iraq, had recommended in a private memo that Bush’s increased troop levels “be maintained through February 2008.” Odierno also said in January that “even with the additional American troops,” it might take another ‘two or three years’ for American and Iraqi forces to gain the upper hand in the war.”

In recent weeks, senior conservatives have said that President Bush had until September “to prove that the Iraq war effort has turned a corner.” Petraeus’ announcement throws a major wrench in that plan.

[azurnoir]

5. As I said we know how much time we have now

In September we will have the time for to play the veto game with Bush, right now we did not. Next September will also be coming up on the final run to the '08 election a card in our hand if played right.

[KoKo]

15. See you in September...when the "Autumn Leaves Drift Throug the Window"

Amazing the songs that come to mind over this.

[Demeter]

8. Articles of Impeachment Ought to Do It

Oh, I forgot, Impeachment is off the table. Silly me!

[whistle]

2. So why wasn't the language modified to read like you suggested?

....The answer is because we have an immature, irrational and quite possibly an insane person posing as president who could not be reasoned with regardless of the language wording. He adamantly opposed time-lines, performance benchmarks and accountability on how the $100 billions was to be spent. So congressional leaders let this idiot have his way knowing that the point when the money will dry up is not far down the road and taxes must be raised, so Bush and republicans will either has to jump on board to raise taxes to pay for the war or shut down the war and bring our troops home.

[azurnoir]

3. Because that was foreseen

The funds for Iraq and Afghanistan are separate for just this reason, to do what was suggested would require the entire war authorization to be rewritten, something that right now there is not time for.

[flyarm]

6. K&RRRRRRRR!!!!! thank you!!! eom

[CRH]

7. There is a third possibility, ...

"Why didn't they do that this week? I can only come up with two possible explanations. The first is they cut a deal. Maybe these Dems negotiated with GOP legislators, perhaps with the best of intentions, to revisit the issue in September. The other explanation is that they're so terrified of being labeled "cut and run" that, even with more than 60% of voters behind them, they're afraid to take a stand."

The third possibility in my opinion is the most likely. That the unity of the democratic party on a platform of 'antiwar' is destined to fail, because the democratic party of present is filled with the fever of Progressive Internationalism with all its corporate influence. The democratic party is not dominated by those sponsoring a peace plank, but rather the dominating influence is the corporate wing of the party and the belief in economic hegemony backed by the bullet when necessary.

The democrats and many on this board try to wash the blood from the party's IWR enabling votes. The truth is, the DLC and blue dogs supported the preemptive use of force to secure future economic hegemony, in line with the philosophy of the Progressive Internationalism document, the brainchild of the 'new democrats'. This is not a Bush, neo-con, or republican war, it is a bi-partisan war, and, it is a naked act of aggression for the purpose of securing access to a vital national resource, that just so happens to be under the sands of another nation's land.

Kucinich spelled it out very succinctly yesterday, it is all about the oil, and the hydrocarbon law that helps to liberate it, in usurious fashion. Time tables for with drawl conflict greatly, with the timely signing of this law in the Shiite dominated Iraqi congress. The Iraqi's congress is very aware this benchmark will never be met, as are the Bush Administration and the democratic party leadership.

The democratic party leadership is anti war in propaganda only, when it doesn't interfere with the hegemonic economy that supports the mind numbing over indulgence of the world's most over consuming, irrational, and irresponsible society this planet has ever experienced.

That some of us democrats choose to continue to believe in the fairytale of the democratic party virtue, while harboring hopes of moralistic peace, only to be disappointed over and over again; illustrates a certain disconnect with the moral and political reality of the United States, in custom, history and heritage; or perhaps more accurately defines our tenuous sanity by expecting different results from actions of the same repetitious greed seeking circumstance.

Both parties suck of the same aggressive manipulative imperial world view, that more for us is better even if it is at the expense of others' human rights, or peace.

edit for spelling

[KoKo]

11. Excellent Points. Even Gore said it....We are there because

"Congress and the Press" helped Bush to put us there. It's not just a rogue President and VP (although they are scum) they were ENABLED to get us there by everyone. And we will be there until some objective about the oil and some security for Israel are achieved. Which could be as long or longer than we were in Vietnam.

[CRH]

13. Which could be as long or longer than we were in Vietnam. ...

With identical results of Viet Nam. Never resulting in a peaceful productive society as long as the occupation continues. Oil will never flow smoothly through the valves of western oil corporations, with the internal Iraqi infra structure sabotage.

As to the security of our favorite middle east Pit Bull, the current Palestinian civil war is like a dream come true for the zionist, while the antagonistic factions eat each other and the press spins Israel's protective peace keeping as well reasoned actions of benevolence. I guess now Israel and the US can concentrate solely on 'preempting' the supposed security threat of Iran.

Both the above situations you have mentioned have no do able military solutions. Further, both parties are tied to ideological investments in both situations, so I too fear the security outposts (bases), protecting our supposed national security interests, to extend well into the future nurturing the gorilla warfare that now is being called terrorism.

And the alternative of with drawl is saddened by the inevitable deepening of Iraqi civil war complete with genocide and the blight of hope for the civilian population.

Below Bemildred posts of the ugly domestic alternative, that leaves me to wonder it this alternative alludes to the 'economic ripples' or perhaps includes as well the more sinister martial repercussions in the domestic rights struggle.

[bemildred]

9. There is another reason for their actions.

Which is that they do not want to end the war, and they do not want to tell us that because we elected them (among other things) to end the war, so we get this Congressional dog-and-pony show instead. They want the war "managed competently", so that the goals of the war (oil, hegemony, keynesian economics) can be achieved. They think that is possible, and they fear (correctly) the alternative. There are exceptions, of course.

If the war ends it's going to get really, really ugly here at home, and I don't mean muslim terrorists.

[Karenina]

10. Bingo.

[KoKo]

12. Yes...things would get very ugly. Distraction always works whether

its Financial Bubbles or Wars.

[KoKo]

14. "Civil Disorder" breaking out at HOME...would dismay both Repugs & Dems!

It would bring them back to the FIRST INSURRECTION...The Democratic CONVENTION IN CHICAGO where there were RIOTS and the CHICAGO POLICE ATTACKED DEMOCRATIC DEMONSTRATORS!

(Do a Google of "Chicago Convention '68" and then do that with + mark to search for Chicago Police!

THE DLC and REPUGS do NOT WANT ANOTHER RIOT AT A CONVENTION...so all they DO is ATTACK! ATTACK! ATTACK!

[CRH]

16. The Party is ripe for another insurrection, ...

but as in 68 I'm not sure it could be contained with a little head bashing and a monkey trial of the Chicago 7. But I'm definitely sure they could find another Judge Hoffman. But then again, this is post 911 and Patriot Act, so who needs a trial? Hell protesting a national convention is un american and therefore a terrorist activity.