On Iraq: Coddling The Congress., Criticizing Clinton

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 07:55:31 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The problem with liberal pundits is that they are capable of being overtaken by herd mentalities just like their conservative colleagues. On Iraq, the majority of liberal pundits have bought into the the patently false notion that the Congress has done "everything it can" to end the war while at the same time deciding Hillary Clinton is not pure on Iraq, notwithstanding the facts. Take Harold Meyerson for instance:

. . . Congressional Democrats have honorably tried and failed to scale back the war; the Senate's requirement of a 60-vote supermajority to alter policy requires supermajority support from the public for an altered Senate.

This is simply false. Meyerson can not be ignorant of the fact that no bill need be passed to end the war. That in fact, FUNDING the war requires passage of a bill and not funding does not. Meyerson gives the Congress a free pass while taking shots at Hillary Clinton:

If Democrats are to win in 2008, it will be because they represent a decisive break, not a partially veiled continuity, with George Bush's policies, and with his war policies most of all. The Democratic candidates, Clinton especially, need to assure voters that their voice matters more than those of the Beltway theorists who supported the war at the outset and still can't contemplate ending the occupation.

Frankly, I have serious doubts that Harold Meyerson gets it on Iraq. At least Hillary knows to not vote for funding the Iraq War, something Meyerson either does not get or does not support:

I have voted against funding this war, and I will vote against funding this war as long as it takes.

On this issue, Hillary has earned more trust than Harold Meyerson, the constant apologist for this Capitulating Congress.

< Innocent Texas Man Freed After Serving 12 Years | Kiefer Sutherland Takes D.U.I. Deal for 48 Days in Jail >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

On Iraq: Coddling The Congress., Criticizing Clinton | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Hillary (none / 0) (#1)
by Lora on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 08:39:19 AM EST

I do not forget how Hilary justified her early support of the war in the first democratic debate by admitting to two glaring mistakes: one, to have ever trusted George Bush, and two, to have actually believed that he would let the UN inspectors do their job in Iraq. Such serious admitted errors in judgment call her qualifications for presidency into serious doubt. However, as a senator, she has acted more like a democrat than many. Let her stay in the Senate.

well lora, (none / 0) (#11)
by cpinva on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 02:15:00 PM EST

based on your position, we should have 535 new senators and representatives every election, since every single one of them makes errors of judgement. actually, you should probably be fired from your job too, since i'm willing to bet you are guilty of the same types of errors.

given the information provided, and the fact that we were fresh off of 9/11, sen. clinton's mistakes put her in relatively good company, pretty much everyone else in the world.

unlike pretty much everyone else in the world, she recognized those mistakes, and hasn't repeated them. it's a pity the same can't be said for every front-running republican.


: If you read my post (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Lora on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 03:38:30 PM EST

You will see that I said I was happy to have Hillary stay in the Senate. I do not think that someone, especially a Democrat, who admitted to A) trusting GWB, and B) believing GWB, should be president.

: Straw man alert! (none / 0) (#20)
by kovie on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 04:54:28 PM EST

I.e. implying that all mistakes are equal, whatever their original justifiability and eventual consequences. Hillary never read the NIE, which was not only massively irresponsible (and about which she's repeatedly lied about when saying that she was fully knowledgable about ALL of the relevant intel at the time of the vote), but if she had read it, would have made her rethink her vote, or else knowingly cast a yes vote anyway that was clearly unjustified and indefensible.
An honest mistake was to believe that Bush would actually go after Bin Laden on 9/12/01. A dishonest mistake was to vote to authorize the Iraq war on 10/11/02 (that's 5 years ago tomorrow) even though the intel to support it was sketchy AT BEST. Hillary knew this and voted yes anyway. That was no honest "mistake", but rather a cold, unprincipled, amoral political calculation. Well, unless this ends up costing her the nomination, that is. Then it'll end up being a HUGE mistake (for her, as opposed to the troops, Iraq and the US, which it's been ever since).

: Also (none / 0) (#21)
by kovie on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 04:57:02 PM EST

"pretty much everyone else in the world" may include some of her rivals, but not Obama. Honest of you to leave that out.
And no, she has NOT recognized, let alone apologized for or failed to repeat these mistakes. Ever heard of the Lieberman-Kyl amendment?
Do your research next time. Or just be more honest.

It would take (none / 0) (#2)
by NMvoiceofreason on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 08:58:18 AM EST

exactly ONE senator, t6o draw a line in the sand and say, "No more violations of the Constitution. No more war.". They could filibuster and make it stick, every time Bush wanted something. But we have no more Patriots left in America, and soon the paper copies of the Constitution will be all we have to remember it by....

The Herd Mentality (none / 0) (#3)
by Edger on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 09:52:47 AM EST

the majority of liberal pundits have bought into the the patently false notion that the Congress has done "everything it can"

It sounds like the majority of liberal pundits are feeling a bit ineffectual and are trying to make excuses for themselves.

They need to keep hammering away and reminding their readers and Pelosi and Reid of the fact that no bill need be passed to end the war, and keep hammering away and reminding Pelosi and Reid and the rest of the Democratic Leadership and Democratic Presidential frontrunners that they were hired last November to do a job.

A job that they are not doing.

The Democratic Leadership and Democratic Presidential frontrunners might stop and ask themselves what they do with their own employees who don't do the jobs they were hired to do.

Excuses are for losers. We hear enough of them from right wing pundits.

Those who seek the Democratic nomination need to--for their own political futures and, with a thousand times more solemnity and importance, for the individual futures of our troops--denounce this betrayal, vote against it, and, if need be, unseat Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi if they continue down this path of guilty, fatal acquiescence to the tragically misguided will of a monomaniacal president.

"If you Democrats defund and end the occupation of Iraq before November 7, 2008 I'll contribute to you and vote for you.

Don't waste my time with excuses. Come back or call back when you're done and you'll get my money and my vote. Have a nice day."

What did you think of Feingold's (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by oculus on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 10:15:36 AM EST

fundraising and dispersal of funds to Congresspersons who stood with him on defunding?

Trying to get some traction for this idea, but nada so far.


You mentioned it in passing the other day (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Edger on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 10:57:59 AM EST

I don't know enough.

Unless I missed it, I was hoping you'd post more detail. Have you?


I figured if I got the e mail, so did everyone (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by oculus on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 01:21:00 PM EST

else here, w/a few exceptions.

Here's the link:

FEINGOLD'S FUND

Idea could have broad application, not only "not funding," but also FISA re-do, S-CHIP, etc.

Premier way to put money where mouth is.


Thanks! (none / 0) (#13)
by Edger on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 02:17:23 PM EST

Apparently it is (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 03:03:52 PM EST

a standard politicians PAC, and does not provide any way for contributors to redirect contributions to a fund to be held for future dispersal to a Senator or Rep contingent on ending the Iraq Occupation, or even contingent on anything.

I would like to hear from someone conversant with organizing a PAC though. They might know if my idea is feasible.


Feingold's follow-up e mail says the fund will (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by oculus on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 03:17:22 PM EST

keep the contributions exceeding the $20,000 already dispersed and use that money for the same purpose. Calls for trust, I guess.


I may be wrong above (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 03:25:01 PM EST

Apparently his fund doles out money to whomever Feingold deems "worthy" - so he does make the channeling of donations "contingent".

Looks like maybe it could be done. A good way of going after those Senators and Reps who will be there too long to be threatened with loss of voters.

Steal their wallets instead? Bankrupt them if the don't vote against funding the occupation?


: Well, Feingold only doled out $1000 per. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by oculus on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 04:05:56 PM EST

More symbolism. But, the $1000 per was accompanied by the message: this is for holding the line on defunding. Not sure if the contributors names were attached.

41 votes (none / 0) (#5)
by mike in dc on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 10:21:55 AM EST

41 votes are needed to block funding from going through in the Senate. No Republicans will back this move, and Lieberman's out. Who else won't be on board? Nelson? Pryor? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this(blocking funding or declining to bring a bill to the floor) as a long shot at best. The one context it might work in would be a March showdown over funding the war past September 2008. Just refuse to pass anything at the time, and play brinksmanship with Bush. Demand as the price of passage an actual firm timetable for withdrawing ALL combat brigades.

Only 39 more Democratic votes needed in the Senate (none / 0) (#6)
by robrecht on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 10:54:07 AM EST

Only 2 Democratic senators voted against the last Iraq funding bill. Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and Obama all missed the vote.

And yet 41 Democratic senators signed Reid's letter in outrage at Limbaugh's "recent characterization of troops who oppose the war as 'phony soldiers'."

Who are the real phonies here?


Smokescreen (none / 0) (#8)
by Edger on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 11:00:53 AM EST

It takes NO votes to NOT introduce or pass a bill.


But you have a hard time.... (none / 0) (#9)
by mike in dc on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 01:13:15 PM EST

...keeping someone else's bill from coming to the floor, especially when it starts out with at least 51 Senators in support of it.

Now, in the House, on the other hand, they probably could use hardball tactics and parliamentary procedure to keep anything from coming to the floor.


: It needs passage by both House and Senate (none / 0) (#12)
by Edger on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 02:16:46 PM EST

to make it to the president, as far as I know.

: if you have (none / 0) (#14)
by cpinva on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 02:19:49 PM EST

.....at least 51 Senators in support of it
preventing it from coming to the floor would be impossible anyway, so your point is moot. all 49 other senators could miss the vote, or be there, and it'd make no difference.
this will continue to happen until the dems have a strong majority in congress, and can toss joe lieberman aside, into the dustbin of history, where he rightfully belongs.

Disqualifying personal flaw (none / 0) (#22)
by diogenes on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 08:07:41 PM EST

Bill Clinton was privy to all the top secret Iraq information until January 2001. Saddam Hussein didn't suddenly change his colors in a year. If Bill knew that there were no WMD's or impending developing WMD's in Iraq, based on all the information available to him, then I assume Hillary knew. She had special connections available to no other democratic senator.
I don't hold the vote against her because I don't buy the "Bush lied" theory. What I hold against her is the pandering of not standing up and saying either that she made the best decision based on the information available to the whole world or saying that she made a mistake. Neither Hillary nor Bill nor GW Bush can admit that they made a mistake. Hubris is the flaw of all of them.