The Nation magazine offers an alibi for Democrats’ support of Iraq war

[IndianaGreen]

The Nation magazine offers an alibi for Democrats’ support of Iraq war

By Bill Van Auken
26 May 2007

The magazine’s editors write as if they were part of a public relations firm hired to massage the images of Pelosi and Reid.

“At least Pelosi and Reid are voting right,” the editorial declares. It cites the House speaker’s and Senate majority leader’s votes on a pair of resolutions that were doomed to defeat from the outset, both calling for a cut in funding for “combat troops” in Iraq.

Here, the timing of the Nation’s editorial served to underscore the fraudulence of its entire thesis. The supposedly principled opponent of war Harry Reid joined 37 other Democrats in the Senate in voting for the war-funding bill. Only 10 Democrats voted against.

As for Pelosi, while personally voting against the measure in the House, she carefully packaged the legislation to ensure its passage by a nearly unanimous Republican minority and 86 Democrats. This was accomplished by means of an adroit parliamentary maneuver, which split a domestic funding portion of the legislation—opposed by some Republicans—from its war spending core, thus assuring that the latter received a solid majority. More importantly, 216 Democrats voted in favor of this procedure—with only seven voting “no”—making the approval of the war spending inevitable.

At a Friday press conference, Pelosi termed the legislation she had voted against “a step in the right direction” and defended her shepherding of the bill through Congress with the increasingly threadbare claim that money appropriated to continue the slaughter in Iraq is designed to “support the troops.”

“As of today, President Bush no longer has a blank check for a war without end in Iraq,” Pelosi declared in her prepared statement issued Friday. Indeed, the check is not blank. It has hers and the Democratic Party’s names on it.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/nati-m26.shtml

[elocs]

1. I never realized that the word "alibi" could have such a negative connotation.

If I had a wife and we were going through a bitter divorce and she was murdered in New York, the police would undoubtedly talk with me. If at the time of her death I was in LA, then I would have an "alibi" and that would be a good thing. Here, evidently, if you agree with how people voted, then you would cite their reasons for doing so. If you disagree, then their "reason" for voting as they did becomes an "alibi". Semantics are interesting.

[sandnsea]

2. What support of war?

Other than Lieberman, and possibly some rare Congressman out there, I don't hear any Dems supporting the war.

Saying something that's not true, I think that's called a lie.

Maybe if the anti-war crowd went after the real war supporters, but nooo.. I guess that would be "hard work".

[Berry Cool]

3. Some people say that when you fund a war, with no qualifiers attached, you support it.

I am one of them.

ALL the "real" war supporters need to be gone after...but some people don't want to do that. I guess that would be "hard work."

[sandnsea]

5. And that wouldn't be true

Dick Durbin does not support the war. Jack Murtha does not support the war. It's ridiculous to suspend everything you know about these individuals when the real culprits get a pass. Hillary and Obama are taking more heat than Lieberman is. It's ridiculous.

[MasonJar]

4. Read William Pitt's article, which is on the front page of DU today,

entitled "Missing." It will put the whole vote into a new perspective for you. As usual, Pitt hones in on the practical with acumen.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Don't mention that name to me!

There is a history there that I care not go into.

:eyes: