NYTimes: Iraq Supplemental A Sharp Rebuke To Bush

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 03:50:28 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

This is the spin TODAY:

It was a sharp rebuke to the president, a clear message that “his policy of more troops, more money and more time has overstayed its welcome,” as Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the Democratic caucus chairman, said after the vote.

I ask, what was the 2006 Election? What was the Iraq Study Group Report? Sharp rebuke today. But what about tomorrow? Bush won't change his position.

But Democrats almost certainly will. I think we all know what is going to happen -- the "firm" date for withdrawal, August 31, 2008, will become a "goal." And this "goal" was once December 31, 2006, then 2007, now 2008.

I think that rhetoric will not be a the winning political position for a Democratic Congress in November 2008. Not when it has the power to end the war, through the Spending Power.

< My Sixth Sense on DC Voting Rights: I See Black People | What Is Move On? >

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.

NYTimes: Iraq Supplemental A Sharp Rebuke To Bush | 16 comments (16 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Obey is Wisconsin n/t (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by dkmich on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 05:04:49 PM EST

"The votes aren't there" (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by brainwave on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 05:19:02 PM EST

What the heck does that mean? The leadership never made a play for defunding, so how do you know the votes weren't there? And if they weren't, what kind of excuse is that anyway? You know, I need to write up an assignment for my students, but I really don't feel like it, so I guess I'm not going to do it, because The will isn't there. And don't blame me, I wanted to write up the assignment, it's just that darn will that just wasn't there.

As for the PR success, that's really great, that makes me feel so good. It's really comforting to know that Dems were elected in 2006 so they could score PR successes. And only purist trolls could possibly think that voters might punish Dems in 2008 if the war is still going on and all the Dems have to show for the Congressional majority is a bunch of PR stunts.

What Will President Pelosi Do About Iraq? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by terryhallinan1 on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 05:24:48 PM EST

That impossible dream becomes less so daily.

But even given that it is not terribly likely to eventuate, one still might ask what Pelosi would do.

Continue the war is my guess.

The trouble is not that you are wrong, BTD, but that most Democrats are IMO.

Best, Terry

There won't be anything easy about ending (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 05:35:03 PM EST

Iraq. It will take the political stomach equal to the stomach of a soldier on patrol in Baghdad. It will take that kind of courage and fullblown all out focus to the committment at hand in the face of the opposition and nothing less. How sad we don't have it in the party of my choosing. How sad that it is all about them and nobody is young enough to be able to hear their higher angels speaking in their ears. One of my friends often says there is no substitute for doing the right thing, and there isn't.

Votes for what? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 06:00:52 PM EST

See you need to read and understand my argument before you can intelligently critique it.

"The votes are not there" demonstrates that, at the least, you do not understand my argument.

Zinn... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Edger on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 06:07:18 PM EST

A union leader who said, "Take this, it's the best we can get" (which is what the MoveOn people are saying about the Democrats' resolution) would be hooted off the platform.

...it is one thing to compromise when you are immediately given part of what you are demanding, if that can then be a springboard for getting more in the future.

The withdrawal timetable proposed by the Democrats gets nothing tangible, only a promise, and leaves the fulfillment of that promise in the hands of the Bush Administration.

And it will get WORSE (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 06:21:39 PM EST

::Too many:: are backing down (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Edger on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 06:30:26 PM EST

and compromising hoping to move the ball a couple of yards down the field.

Without realizing what they're compromising.

Everything.

Pragmatism is delusion...


With Bush and the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:12:37 PM EST

I thought this obvious.


I did too. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Edger on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:25:57 PM EST

I still do. But I guess people feel like they need some hope that Bush et al are "negotiating" in good faith, and are willing to grab onto any carrot dangled.

They are not "negotiating". They are using peoples hope that they will act like normal human beings against them.

After seven years of this, still nobody wants to believe they are dealing with utterly manipulative psychopaths, even after all this time.

Pelosi might as well be trying to cut a deal with Ted Bundy, for chrissakes.


: Pelosi and Bundy (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by terryhallinan1 on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:39:00 PM EST

Pelosi might as well be trying to cut a deal with Ted Bundy, for chrissakes.
Why not? Ted Bundy was a Republican politician appointed to Washington State's crime commission. Bundy surely had a keen knowledge of crime unlike Alberto Gonsalves' complete lack of knowledge of civil rights.
Ann Rule wrote that Ted Bundy always accompanied her out to her car in early morning hours after they both worked on a suicide hotline. Bundy warned her that there were predators capable of taking advantage of unprotected ladies.
Our current Republican president is also capable of taking advantage.
Best, Terry

: She has to realize that she CANNOT (1.00 / 1) (#14)
by Edger on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:43:21 PM EST

accept promises or 'committments' from the rethugs. They will tell her what she wants to hear everytime, and keep her dazzled with a yard there and a yard here and a field goal now and then and keep her so blinded with the little successes they let her have that she'll never see the 300 pounder coming up through her blind spot until she's flat on her back, broken, wondering what the f*ck happened, and staring up at a laughing maniac, who will then step on her instead of going around her.

I better go for a walk...

: The worst of it is - I suspect she knows (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:48:51 PM EST

Look at these two pictures. One... and two. Look at her expressions.

The NYT's ::rebuke:: (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Edger on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 06:35:57 PM EST

is a sham and a lie and nothing more than manipulating bullsh*t. It is no rebuke at all - it is endorsement. Through the looking glass smoke to hide the mirrors.

Votes and votes (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by LarryE on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 01:22:19 AM EST

The trouble with the "The votes aren't there!" argument is that it means you never consider options that don't already have majority support - but of course things won't ever get majority support if they never get considered. You trap yourself in lowest common denominator "solutions" before you even begin.

In this case, it means you avoid going after what you supposedly actually want - an end to the war - in favor of a "compromise" that would not stop the war (because it lacks any effective enforcement) even if it became law, which you know damn well it won't.

I agree that the way the media coverage has gone has been favorable to Democrats and indirectly to war opponents. But while that may affect whether or not passing the supplemental was a political mistake, it does nothing to change the facts on the ground, including the salient one that the bill will not stop the war.

Questions and answers (1.00 / 1) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:10:51 PM EST

I ask, what was the 2006 Election? What was the Iraq Study Group Report?

Gee, that's a hard one. But, I'll try to answer.

The election was a mid-term congresssional election to determine who controls Congress.

Since we are a constitutional republic, not a parlimentary democracy, as far as the executive is concerned, it changed nothing.

The ISG was a study that someone called for. The President may have read it, he may not have. Either way, it is meaningless unless the President wants to accept it.

I do hope the above isn't too complicated for you.