Endorsing Doing Nothing on Iraq
Posted on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 02:04:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
David Sirota, (David responds to me here) of all people, is recommending a column that seems to endorse doing nothing to end the war in Iraq:
There is one decisive action that the Congress could theoretically take with respect to Iraq given Bush’s Constitutional authorities. Tina Richards referred to it in her exchange with Obey. Congress could simply refuse to pass any legislation providing further funding for the war. That sounds both simple and effective. But there are serious downsides to such a strategy that devoted opponents of this war should reflect upon. . . . Well-meaning people can argue about whether or not such a strategy would be good policy or whether or not it would be good politics. But there is little room for argument as to whether such a stance is a viable legislative strategy.
So there you have it, we "idiots" can do and should do nothing. Boy, aren't you glad you voted for Dems in 2006 in order to end the war in Iraq?
This may be an honest opinion but what I do not understand is the hostility to folks like me that are trying to pressure the Dem Congress to do the right thing? Why would it bother these people so? Cuz it makes their lives and the lives of the former employers more difficult? Are they serious in arguing this stuff? I mean, David Sirota, the fire breathing David Sirota, is endorsing this?
Tell me again exactly why Dems are different on Iraq? Is this really the line they are going to trot out?
I do have one substantive response to what I can only consider a deliberate distortion:
Failure to pass further appropriations means a cut-off of supplies to troops in harm’s way. It means no fuel, no ammunition, and no medical supplies. As the months pass and the Congress and the President remain at an impasse, the men and women on the ground in Iraq will not only be caught between Sunni and Sh’ia militias, but also between the two branches of their own government. Such an action would actually even deprive the President of the funds needed to bring the troops home if he suddenly came to his senses and decided to do so.
This is just plain mendacious. No one is proposing anything like that. No one. My own proposal is this:
In reality there are two positions available now -for ending the Debacle or for continuing it. It is that simple. And the choice is binary. Because President George W. Bush makes it so. Bush listens to no one, except Cheney.
Many ask 'so what is a Democratic Congress to do?' With Mitch McConnell promising filibusters to all attempts to revoke the Iraq AUMF, cap troop levels and to cut funding for the Iraq Debacle, what is it I am asking of the Democratic Congress?
Let me explain again - I ask for three things: First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. You pick the date. Whatever works politically. If October 2007 is the date Dems can agree to, then let it be then. If March 2008, then let that be the date; Second, spend the year reminding the President and the American People every day that Democrats will not fund the war past the date certain; Third, do NOT fund the Iraq Debacle PAST the date certain.
Some argue we will never have the votes for this. That McConnell will filibuster, that Bush will veto. To them I say I KNOW. But filbustering and vetoing does not fund the Iraq Debacle. Let me repeat, to end the war in Iraq, the Democratic Congress does not have to pass a single bill; they need only NOT pass bills that fund the Iraq Debacle.
But but but, defund the whole government? Defund the whole military? What if Bush does not pull out the troops? First, no, not defund the government, defund the Iraq Debacle. If the Republicans choose to shut down government in order to force the continuation of the Iraq Debacle, do not give in. Fight the political fight. We'll win. Second, defund the military? See answer to number one. Third, well, if you tell the American People what is coming for a year, and that Bush is on notice, that i t will be Bush abandoning the troops in Iraq, we can win that politcal battle too.
Understand this, if you want to end the Iraq Debacle, this is the only way until Bush is not President. If you are not for this for ending the war, tell me what you do support. I think this is the only way. And if you shy away from the only way to end the Debacle, then you really are not for ending the war are you?
| < Waas on Gonzales, Bush and the NSA Wiretapping | The Rove E-Mail > |
