Back on April 4 I wrote:
“The essence of compromise boils down to five words: “What’s in it for me?”
So with Bush facing a congressional war-funding bill with deadlines attached–benchmarks that he himself mentioned earlier this year, and is now being asked to hew to–congress is hoping that he will compromise on withdrawal dates rather than veto the entire bill.
What’s in it for him to do so?
Nothing.”
And naturally he didn’t compromise. Which, of course, the Democrats should have seen coming (I mean, if I saw it coming, they should have been able to) and one would hope that a Plan B was in effect.
Well, it’s appearing…not so much.
Now it’s the Democrats who need to stay the course. The Democrats who need to dig in and say, “This or nothing.” Unfortunately, they don’t appear ready, willing or able to do that. There is concern that they will be accused of refusing to fund the troops in time of war.
Well…yeah. Obviously that’s going to be the spin. And the spin in response should be “Who’s more concerned about the troops, the Democrats or the White House? Obviously it’s the Democrats.” Unfortunately for the Democrats, the GOP spin machine is simply more efficient, and Bush more intransigent, than the Democratic leadership. They haven’t yet realized, apparently, that they’re dealing with a mindset that’s as uncompromising as any other extremist. You can’t compromise with extremists. Bush understands that because that’s what he himself is. The Democrats are approaching the issue with the mindset of rational people, which is why they’re in trouble.
We can’t announce a pull out date because we’d be giving information to our enemies? Well, maybe, but more relevant is that we’d be giving information to our supposed allies–the Iraqi government–telling them that the whole “they stand up so we can stand down” thing finally has a timeclock. By me, that’s a good thing.
PAD
• 
I really think that if youo gave Bush a PET scan ( and not for his Scottie…) you’d find the Black Hole of Calcutta.
Much speculation has been given as to whether or not he’s back on the sauce….I think he never left.
Not to belabor the obvious, but every day that Bush refuses to pressure the Iraqi government to take care of itself is a day closer to him pushing this cluster-f of biblical proportions onto the next president, and forcing him/her to handle the mess while what’s-his-name toddles off to Crawford.
What glorious leadership…
You know at some point, we as a nation are going to have to ask ourselves the following question: Just because the “decider” is determined to over the cliff, does that mean we have to go along with him?
oh, by the way Peter- some friends of mine are playing in the HudsonValley May Faire this weekend- check it out:
http://www.hvmayfaire.com/
you may notice the gent on the front page – as well as a few NYRF expats.
Well, the Iraqi government has gone on a 2-month vacation, so obviously, they learned something about governing from Bush.
CHV, Bush’s entire life has been all about creating a mess and then moving on, leaving it to someone else to clean up. Why anyone is surprised that his pattern as president was more of the same is beyond me.
Just because the “decider” is determined to over the cliff, does that mean we have to go along with him?
We are a Lemming Nation.
Or at least Bush assumes we are.
from the NYT:
The President called the bill a “prescription for chaos and confusion,” setting up a further battle with Congressional Democrats.
Isn’t that what Iraq already is? The Iraqi government is hobbling the efforts of our troops even as we speak.
Bush is so concerned about his iamge for the public he appeared on American Idol of all things last night. Thanking people for their donations to last weeks show. I don’t seem to remember him saying anything about donating himself. I just remember it unsettling seeing him when I was not wanting to….not that I ever want to.
Den:
You’re such a negative nellie!
Don’t you watch Fox News? Everything in Iraq is gonna be just fine, and our president’s glorious legacy will shine thru! Just you wait!
We are a Lemming Nation.
Don’t insult lemmings like that.
Wa;t Disney nade that stuff up. Of course, like so much of America believes Fox News, America believed Uncle Walt. We’re a bunch of believers.
“They haven’t yet realized, apparently, that they’re dealing with a mindset that’s as uncompromising as any other extremist. You can’t compromise with extremists.”
Isn’t that part of the definition/M.O. of a terrorist? An extremist?
“Bush understands that because that’s what he himself is.”
Now we just need the rest of America to realize it…
The Dems need to stick with it and keep sending Bush the same bill again and again, they need to be as intractable as he is. For it is he that is running out of time in that case and when the army is out of money he’ll have no chice.
As far as I care if the Dems give him what he wants then they have just turned themselves into a bunch of panzies and neither political party is worth a hill of beans at that point.
Pelosi et all need to get in front of the cameras and say “this is not a fight you are goig to win Mr. President.” After all he can’t congress controls the purse strings.
Flipping channels last night, I paused on one talking head commenting on how keeping funding front and center by forcing El Presidente to come back as long as funding isn’t passed served a dual purpose – one it kept the issue out there in front of the public and two it meant the public could begin to keep close track of those members of Congress who continue to support failed policies.
What baffles me more than anything regarding this funding bill dust-up is that the Dem-recommended pull-out dates are non-binding, yet Bush is acting like the opposite is so.
For all his crap about being a “uniter,” with Bush The Cowboy, it’s his way (no matter how absurd or brainless) or the highway.
If only Patrick Swayze were president…
Wa;t Disney nade that stuff up.
Oh, I know. But most people don’t. 🙂
What is the difference between a benchmark (which Bush claims to want of the Iraqis, but apparently isn’t that interested in getting) and a timeline?
It’s also good to see Pelosi quoting Bush from ’99 on Clinton going to Bosnia.
Craig, the difference is simply who gets decide what and when the benchmarks are. That’s Bush’s job. He’s the decider, after all. No one else should be allowed to even suggest he do anything other than exactly what he wants. If they do, he’ll hold his breath and cry until they give in.
Can’t wait until we have an adult in the Oval Office again.
I’m convinced that Bush’s hold-my-breath-until-I-turn-blue style of “leadership” springs from his delusion that the U.S. government is like a corporation, and the president the CEO with near-unlimited power (barring stockholders).
He seems to regard Congress as something to be tolerated versus a co-equal branch of government.
But then again, are any of us shocked that Bush apparently has never read the Constitution?
I think Bush has read the Constitution, he just thinks his version would be better….
What’s scary is that Bush’s “unity executive” version of the constitution seems to say that the president is a 4-year dictator with no limitations on his power.
Sadly, there are still many neocons who believe that this is a good idea.
…or regards it as an optional list of suggestions.
“…or regards it as an optional list of suggestions.”
War to line the pockets of fat cats? billions of dollars
Cost of President Bush to try to take credit for donations on American Idol? $0
Your comment CHV…priceless 🙂
Rob
Of course Bush vetoed the bill. He’s Bush.
If I were the Democrats, I’d keep passing revised bills with timetables attached. If Bush keeps vetoed the bill (which he will, because he’s Bush), it would really hurt the Republicans in ’08. But then again, that’s assuming the Democrats have competant leadership, which they don’t. To paraphrase Jon Stewart: “Obama will save us! He has no experience and we know nothing about him, but he seems nice. Lead us!”
It’s a very interesting place to be. I don’t think the rhetoric about “deadlines for failure” is having any traction at all. I don’t think the idea that Democrats don’t support our troops is getting any support either. At long last, that dog don’t hunt no more.
The consensus that this Administration screwed up Iraq and is too stubborn to admit reality YET AGAIN is trumping all the usual right wing tactics.
Bush has not only imploded his own legacy, but he is now dragging down those classic Republican political themes as he slides. I thought they still had some play in them, but he is ACTUALLY KILLING THEM with his lack of credibility.
The Democrats don’t need to escalate. They need to fortify their existing position and keep this front burner for the next two years. How they do that while making it clear they are not skimping on protecting the existing troops in Iraq is the question, but I think the burden of proof that they support the troops is a light one.
The myth that Republicans care MORE for the troops (Walter Reed, “the army you have”, unending National Guard deployments, lack of pre-war planning, etc.) has been totally BUSTED.
As much as I dislike Bush and the Republicans, I do have to give them credit. When they want something (or don’t want something), they dig in and fight. It may be the worst idea ever, but they go to the wall for it.
The Democrats currently have the house, senate, and public opinion behind them, yet it still looks like they might back down.
If this is the best they can do, they don’t deserve to govern.
As much as I dislike Bush and the Republicans, I do have to give them credit. When they want something (or don’t want something), they dig in and fight. It may be the worst idea ever, but they go to the wall for it.
Consider Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg.
Sure, Lee dug in hard for his beliefs, but in the process he sent his troops face-first into a slaughter of Union gunfire camped on Cemetary Hill.
Tell me, was this fighting leadership or just stupidity?
Tell me, was this fighting leadership or just stupidity?
I’m not saying that stupid things haven’t been done, not at all. However, people do gravitate to strong leadership (or at least the appearance of it). This is the democrats chance to show they have a will, and won’t crumble in the face of Bush’s “leadership”.
The democrats are probably in the strongest political position they’ll be in under Bush. House, Senate, and public support for a timetable. If they don’t stand up now and say “We’re going to have a timetable, if you veto 10 times we’re going to send 11 bills”, what’s the point?
The democrats can have the best ideas ever, but if they don’t stand up for them, they might as well have done nothing.
Agreed.
The Dems are playing politics with this matter, although I would argue the White House is flogging their own dead horse even more furiously.
“Unfortunately for the Democrats, the GOP spin machine is simply more efficient…”
Okay, now I’m sure I love in the mirror universe.
Tell me, was this fighting leadership or just stupidity?
If he wins, it’s leadership; if he loses, it’s stupidity. :p
I agree with Kevin. The Democrats, the Left, the Humanists, they all started to lose the war for American’s hearts and minds because they currently don’t have as much conviction in their own beliefs as the Republicans, the Right, the Religious Crusaders. And it’s sad.
Unfortunately, even the disaster that is the Iraq War may not be enough to bury the Republicans. According to the polls, people are sick and tired of the Republicans and Bush, but that isn’t translating directly into support for the Democrats and their ideals.
You’re got the beliefs part right, Rene.
I mean, seriously, how do you compete with the types of people who 100% believe that the Dems are overstepping their authority with the bill Bush just vetoed?
All the while ignoring Bush’s constant abuses of power and opinion that the judicial and legislative branches should be submissive to the executive?
I’m of the belief that I’m not living on the same plane of reality as those like Bush and his little cult of followers.
“But slowly but surely, the truth will be known. Either we’ll succeed, or we won’t succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence.”
Can we make the President stay after class so he can catch up on his remedial logic and 3rd grade grammar?
oy. frikkin. veyzmir.
>Democrats should have seen coming (I mean, if I saw it coming, they should have been able to)
You forget one little detail, Mr. David. You’re intelligent. They’re politicians. ’nuff said.
>It may be the worst idea ever, but they go to the wall for it.
Good timing. Just today I saw a joke which went something along the lines of …
American, British and Australian military officers were arguing over who had the bravest troops.
The American orders one of his privates to stand in front of a tank and let himself get run over. *squish*. “That’s brave!” he proudly exclaims.
The Brit orders one of his men to jump out of a plane at 10,000 feet without a chute. *splat*. “Now THAT’S brave!” he crows.
The Australian officer just motions one of his soldiers to come over then orders him to jump off a thousand-foot cliff.
The soldier replies “Screw that” and walks away.
The Aussie officer turns to the other two and just smiles, his point well made.
I’m of the belief that I’m not living on the same plane of reality as those like Bush and his little cult of followers.
When I saw that the bushites believed that Wikipedia was “too liberal” (ie, it treated evolution and global warming as SCIENCE) and created their own version called “conservapedia”, I realized that they’re living in the Bizarro World.
Seriously, when one of them said they were creating their own reality, that wasn’t a snarky remark. They really believe that they can do it.
I dunno if the Aussie soldier is the bravest in that joke, but he is the smartest…
I wrote about this at some length in a diary at DailyKos. Here’s my thinking.
Bush could have used a signing statement to state that the withdrawal timetable in the appropriations bill was “merely advisory” and not consistent with “his inherent Commander-in-Chief powers vested in the unitary executive.” (Read one of his signing statements some time. Yes, he really uses words like that.)
He couldn’t do it to this bill, though. Not after very publicly blasting the bill for tying his hands the past six weeks or so.
But eventually, he’s going to have to sign a bill. If he lays off the “Congress can’t do that” line, he can sign a bill somewhere before July and look like a rational compromiser while quietly adding his signing statement signifying that he’s not, no way and no how, going to comply with the withdrawal timetable. Indeed, he’ll probably just lie about the contents of the bill and pretend there’s no timetable at all.
He won’t get the bill he wants. He’ll just say it’s the bill he wants and dare the Congress to try and force the issue in the courts.
It’s running out the clock. That’s the endgame.
I realized that they’re living in the Bizarro World.
Ahh, the power of shared delusions.
I bet if Bush ever admitted he’s really screwed everything up, the resulting Republican cliff jump would make Jonestown look like an afternoon picnic.
Unfortunately, even the disaster that is the Iraq War may not be enough to bury the Republicans. According to the polls, people are sick and tired of the Republicans and Bush, but that isn’t translating directly into support for the Democrats and their ideals.
If the Democrats back down and give Bush a bill without a timetable, people are going to ask, rightly, “Well if you can’t stop this bášŧárd from keeping us in Iraq indefinitely and you don’t even put any effort into fighting him on it, then what good are you? Explain why we even bothered voting in November if this is the best you can do.”
And naturally he didn’t compromise. Which, of course, the Democrats should have seen coming (I mean, if I saw it coming, they should have been able to) and one would hope that a Plan B was in effect.
Right. I mean, what, did they think he was just blowing smoke when he said over and over and over that he was going to veto the bill?
If they say “All right, if you don’t agree to our terms, you don’t get any more money,” there is absolutely no way that it will cost them seats in ’08 because the Republicans will still be hated more. Don’t they realize this? Don’t they also realize that if they give Bush the bill he wants, that the blood will be on their hands as well? Goddammit.
“The Democrats are approaching the issue with the mindset of rational people, which is why they’re in trouble.”
Rational?
Would that be Harry Reid, who declares that the “war is lost” while the troops are still fighting? (*There* is a morale booster, yeah boy… for the enemy.)
Or Nancy Pelosi? Who ignores the requests of the White House to go make nicey-nice with Syria?
The war is a mess. It could have been done much better. But whatever you believe, the fact is we *are* there. Is it so wrong to want to win?
Do a majority of Americans want out? Sure. I get that. But I think even worse, Americans hate to lose.
Let the troops fight. Let the surge take place. Let it work. Let if fail. But don’t apply an exit date to the war. You want to apply levels of accomplishment, and see if we’ve reached them? Fine. But letting the bad guys know when we’re leaving, so they know when to prepare to strike after we’ve left?
Yeah. That’s rational.
RLR
Would that be Harry Reid, who declares that the “war is lost” while the troops are still fighting?
The war is lost in that they can keep on fighting and pouring the lives of U.S. troops into this thing as long as they want and it will be FUTILE. It’s bailing water out of the Titanic. There’s been a U.S. presence there for over four years now and the country still isn’t secure. If they can’t fix the problems in four years, it just can’t be done. Best to tell the Iraqi government “Hey guys, we’re outta here in another year, so you have that long to get your šhìŧ together because by then you’re gonna be on your own.”
Or Nancy Pelosi? Who ignores the requests of the White House to go make nicey-nice with Syria?
Yeah, I suppose it’s better to piss Syria off by shunning them like Bush insists on doing with Iran. That’ll make them less likely to attack U.S. forces, won’t it?
The war is a mess. It could have been done much better. But whatever you believe, the fact is we *are* there. Is it so wrong to want to win?
No, but it’s unrealistic to expect you can win after you’ve been hammering away at the problem for four straight years with little or nothing to show for it. How do you think keeping American troops there will ultimately STOP suicide bombings? What’s the plan? How do you just get rid of everybody who feels like blowing himself up in the name of his cause, hmm? I’d like to know. I don’t think it can be done without conquering the entire region and imposing martial law, which is impossible.
Btw, speaking of killing morale, extending soldiers’ tours by an additional three months hurts morale. So does sending them back into the fray early after promising them some time at home with their loved ones. Ain’t Reid or Pelosi doing that šhìŧ, pal.
Do a majority of Americans want out? Sure. I get that. But I think even worse, Americans hate to lose.
Which is why they have reason to hate Bush for getting them into a fight they couldn’t win and for refusing to get them out of it. Losing doesn’t look good, but a guy who says “Wait, no, that doesn’t count, we haven’t lost, the game isn’t over, we can still win!” when the facts say the exact opposite…that’s just sad.
Fine. But letting the bad guys know when we’re leaving, so they know when to prepare to strike after we’ve left?
*sigh* Look…we have been there for a LONG time, all right? The administration said over and over that the Iraqi people would eventually stand up, and at the point the American forces would stand down. But the Iraqis are taking their sweet time standing up.
So what are you saying…that it doesn’t matter to you if they never stand up? That you want to keep American troops there, dying a dozen or more at a time over weeks and months and years because it’s somehow the end of the world if they leave? Keep wasting lives and money and resources on maintaing what is at best an endless stalemate?
You ask people, you and John McCain, to wait and give this thing a chance. I say that we’ve waited long enough. I say that if this surge is gonna solve all the problems in Iraq, then why wasn’t it implemented last year, or the year before that? Back then people might’ve had a little more patience left.
Screw waiting longer. It’s time to cut our losses. Unless you believe the U.S. can maintain current troop levels from now until the end of time, we are only delaying the inevitable by staying. If we can’t even make Israel safe from terrorist attacks, you can be dámņ sure we can’t make Iraq safe.
Or Nancy Pelosi? Who ignores the requests of the White House to go make nicey-nice with Syria?
You mean the bipartisan trip that the White House knew about in advance, but raised absolutely no objections to until Fox News and other rightwing media outlets starting making hay out of it? The one that followed almost immediately after a group of republicans congress critters made a similar trip to Syria?
Try to get some facts first, please.
Oh, and how come no one screamed “treason” when then-speaker Dennis Hastert went to China and told the Chinese government to ignore the Clinton administration and just deal with Congress?
Is it so wrong to want to win?
Can I ask a simple question? What over the last six years has lead you to believe that this administration is even capable of winning a game of checkers must less this war? What makes you think in the remaining 20 months that Bush will suddenly discover the competence that has eluded him for the past six years, if not his entire life?
Sigh
“The question is, ‘Who ought to make that decision, the Congress or the commanders?,’’ Mr. Bush said. “As you know, my position is clear – I’m the commander guy.”
My understanding is that people who want to win are the benefactors of conmen. How many widows of a Nigerian general have to cheat you before you know not to give out your account access for the sake of winning?
Not severely enough to join the fight themselves — or even call for a tax increase to pay for the war. Posting this from Iraq yourself, are you?
> (*There* is a morale booster, yeah boy… for the enemy.)
Newsflash, the military is already demoralized, they are in a meat grinder and their mental states are being destroyed. It’s called fighting a war that they know can’t be won. There was a report drifting around yesterday that even our political people stationed over there are starting to suffer from PTSS and are being mentally screened. While a repub appointed political may get relief by not being sent back over there for mental reasons, very few soldiers are being allowed that opportunity.
And let me echo what several other people are saying, you are posting from Iraq correct? Or are you a pampered Repub sitting in your lazyboy without any family standing in harms way?
>Or Nancy Pelosi? Who ignores the requests of the White House to go make nicey-nice with Syria?
Such a non issue or did you forget that Condi is headed over there? Or a Repub visited a few months before Pelosi?
>Is it so wrong to want to win?
Is it right to kill people for a lie? This stupidity wasn’t winnable from day one, no political war is or have you forgotten Korea and Vietnam?
> But I think even worse, Americans hate to lose.
Wah! I would rather get my neighbors children slaughtered while I sit in my lazyboy than face reality.
>Let the troops fight. Let the surge take place. Let it work. Let if fail.
Let more troops die, die, die! For what? Lies!
>But letting the bad guys know when we’re leaving, so they know when to prepare to strike after we’ve left?
Newsflash, the latest plot if there actually was one was defeated in Saudi Arabia! You seem to be fighting a war several hundred miles off course from the real terrorists.
I support our troops, get them the hëll out of harms way and back to their family!
>Yeah. That’s rational.RLR
We’ll be hearing you enlisted shortly right?
There is really something wrong with the Democratic majority in Congress’s ability to point out what is obvious. 1. They sent the President a bill which gave full funding for the military, but he vetoed it: Who was it who denied the funding the President says is so important? 2. Anyone should know that our troops are more likely to be killed if they are deployed to combat than if they are not. The Democrats want to get the troops out of continuous combat as soon as possible, while the President will stick his lip out at us if he is denied his glorious war. Who is “supporting the troops” here? It’s very sad that Congressional Democrats cannot better call Mr. Bush on his incoherent policies.
Den –
“As you know, my position is clear – I’m the commander guy.”
It’s pretty obvious at this point that Bush clearly sees himself as the dictator guy.
hitman –
Or a Repub visited a few months before Pelosi?
Or a Repub visited THE DAY AFTER Pelosi.
It’s pretty obvious at this point that Bush clearly sees himself as the dictator guy.
Now that sounds like Tony Stark’s new identity.
Anyone else get a mental of Bush running around the White House with a towel tied around his neck yelling, “Whoooosh!! I’m the Commandy Guy, here to save the day!”?
No?
Just me?
Oh well.
You know what irritates me that most about Bush?
The way that he gets all giggly when he talks about being a “war president” or how he understand why people don’t understand that the surge is working (BTW, Sen. Boner’s 90-day window for seeing signs of success from the surge expired already) or how this war is so important.
It aggravates me to no end that it’s obvious this man doesn’t take his job seriously.
“There is really something wrong with the Democratic majority in Congress’s ability to point out what is obvious. 1. They sent the President a bill which gave full funding for the military, but he vetoed it: Who was it who denied the funding the President says is so important?”
EXACTLY!!!!
THe president had the funding he claims to so desperately need, and to get it all he had to do was sign the bill.
But he let a NON-BINDING “pull-out” date be his excuse to veto it. Bush has proven that he doesn’t give a rats ášš about the troops. This bill gave him the funding he wants and places no real limits on it, but a totally toothless bit of wordy fluff in it caused him to veto it and “Deny the troops the money they need”.
Congress didn’t deny the troops the moeny, Bush did.
Bush is a fanatic, Bush is a terrorist. He had what he wanted but didn’t like the way it was worded, so he rejected it. Mental illness/defect at it purest form…
>I dunno if the Aussie soldier is the bravest in that joke, but he is the smartest…
Getting killed in battle (or otherwise) doesn’t take half the guts that standing up to your superior officer does. Everything they train into you is [generally] designed to ensure the latter never happens.