home

Lowering Expectations On Iraq

I have noted before that I consider David Sirota a good friend and a good progressive who wants the Iraq Debacle to end. I have also noted my almost complete disagreement with his analysis of the Dem House Iraq supplemental bill. One of my major points was that the strength of the anti-Iraq War movement was much more prevalent in the House than in the Senate and thus the "line in the sand" needed to be drawn there so that the inevitable "compromises" that the Senate would require could start from a more anti-Debacle position. And of course, Bush would veto any concrete anti-Debacle legislation. Thus ultimately, a staredown with the President would be required. That is why I endorsed this approach:

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.

The House bill does none of these things.

And the point of my approach has always been that the votes are not there for a positive action on ending the war. The action must be negative. Instead of convoluting this simple approach with benchmarks and other provisions susceptible to challenges of micromanagement and uncontitutionality, stick to the approach EVERYONE agrees is legal and principled - do not fund the war.

And votes are not needed for this approach. Fortitude from the House leadership is what is needed. Present a clean funding bill to the date certain. No distractions with benchmarks and Presidential certification. JUST a DATE CERTAIN. And then the LEADERSHIP, preferably in the House, states bluntly that no more monies will be provided. The Dem LEADERSHIP will not put forward legislation funding past the date certain. There is nothing objectionable in the bill itself, so no basis for attacking it EXCEPT because it sets and end date to the US military combat presence in the Iraqi civil war.

And then a couragous leadership does what is necessary to hold the line. IF the Blue Dogs bolt, then THEY own the war, but mainline Dems do not. I think the Blue Dogs would not bolt when the time comes - say March 31, 2008. A year from now there will be MORE support for leaving Iraq, not less. A better chance to end the war and play smart politics.

What has transpired is an unmitigated disaster, and in the Sirota post I link to he is forced to damp down expectations after overselling the House bill:

I want to reiterate one point when everyone watches the Senate debate over Iraq: The U.S. Congress at this moment in time has a pro-war majority. I know people don't like to hear that. But it's simple math. In the House, the entire Republican Conference is pro-war, and about 20-30 Democrats are pro-war. . . . In the Senate, it's the same thing: The entire Republican Conference is pro-war, as is Joe Lieberman, giving them 50 pro-war votes. . . . We certainly need to change that, whether through pressure right now on the pro-war members and/or through the 2008 election. However, at this moment, the Congress's pro-war majority is an unfortunate fact of political life - it's not a fantasy. Therefore, getting any binding legislation to end the war out of a majority pro-war legislature is akin to a Houdini-esque magic trick - and if we can do it, it's a major accomplishment, even if we have to swallow some things we hate, and even if what ultimately comes out isn't 100 percent perfect. . . .

David is telling you already, the strategy he endorses will NOT work. And then he descends into red herring namecalling:

For the purists out there, just remember: purity is not a legislative strategy, and having a legislative strategy isn't "selling out" purity, either.

A hopeless approach is not a legislative strategy either David. PLEASE STOP WITH THE PURITY NONSENSE! Most of us oppose your strategy because we think it is a bad one, harmful to the cause and harmful politically. Stop flattering yourself as the pragmatic ones. We think you are utterly UNpragmatic. Honest to goodness, we think your strategy really really not smart. We could be wrong, but please, argue the merits. Maybe we are the dumb ones. But the little purity namecalling is really really annoying. Just stop it.

David says:

Getting a legislative body with a majority against our antiwar position to do something that supports our antiwar position is a huge challenge that requires more than a little strategy. If we are successful, it would be a huge step forward.

Sure David. But your strategy has ZERO chance of success, policywise or politically, imo. THAT is why we object to it. Not because of purity. I think the strategy I outline has the best chance of working, precisely because it is PRAGMATIC. It understands the impossibility of getting the necessary votes to execute YOUR strategy.

Markos' take is much superior to yours. He does not pretend possibility of success. He argues from the perspective of trying to win the votes necessary in the 2008 election. At least his approach is not a pipe dream. It could work. I think it is a bad strategy, but not lacking in pragmatism, politically savvy and a measure of intelligence.

It is an argument that deserves respect. Your strategy seems, at best unrealistic, at worst, harmful. But mine is an opinion, I could be wrong. But my opinion does NOT spring from "purity."

< David Stockman Indicted | David Hicks Agrees to Plead Guilty at Guantanamo >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    BTD & David (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:46:10 PM EST
    I slammed David pretty hard here the other day. To clarify, it was because I don't want him (or anyone else) to become an accessory. Not because I think he is in his heart. He's pushing what he thinks is right, but I think he is mistaken, too.

    There has to be a showdown with Bush. Sooner, rather than later. Or there may not be a later.

    After the bill gets through the Senate (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by TexDem on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:13:57 PM EST
    I think Bush will sign it, not veto it. After all he gets funding until Sept 08 and he doesn't give a crap after then. Bush's posturing about a veto strikes me a bit like Brer Rabbit begging not to be thrown into the briar patch. "Don't pass any funding through September of next year with any benchmarks,  I'll veto it."

    No funding past a date certain is the only alternative. The sooner the date the better. A date of March 08 may even be too much.

    Parent

    RE: Bush will sign it, not veto it. (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:26:14 PM EST
    I wonder about that too. Signing statements. His veto threat could be simple manipulation. Once the money is allocated who can hold him to the terms of the bill anyway? An SC challenge? It's his court. And even if it wasn't it would take longer than he will be there, no?

    The bill gives everything to Bush, and gets nothing in return except smoke and promises...

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by TexDem on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:29:24 PM EST
    Like I said, Brer Rabbit.

    Parent
    I asked Barney Frank about this at GW tonight (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:43:55 PM EST
    he confirmed the working explanation that Blue Dogs woulnd't vote for anything stronger. I didn't have time to ask him why, in that case, pelosi even bothered.

    BTD, with all due respect (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by bx58 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:46:14 PM EST
    are you wet behind the ears or just dishonest?

    Do you remember last July when the Israelis were bombing the crap out of the residential neighborhoods of Beruit? They killed about a thousand people.

    Bush/Cheney kept their mouths shut while the Israelis did their work, do you remember what the congress did while Bush kept his mouth shut?

    The congress basically tripped over themselves to tell the world what a great thing it was the Israelis were doing.

    If congress behaved like that why do you think they would be serious about ending the war in Iraq?

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 10:38:11 PM EST
    what your comment has to do with my post.

    Parent
    You don't understand? (none / 0) (#17)
    by bx58 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 11:35:02 PM EST
    SoCali explained it nicely. He's about 3 posts down. This is not rocket science.

    Parent
    Well, OK (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:44:03 PM EST
    This is just getting out of hand. I can't decide WTF Bush should be impeached for first. This indescribable atrocity, or his negligence in the DOJ meltdown.

    The only solution is to take the white house. Now.

    Impeach.

    Oxymoron (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:46:41 PM EST
    Lowering expectations on Iraq.

    There's only one thing missing (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by leoncarre on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 10:33:30 PM EST
    and that's to get this piece where it will be read widely.
    OpEd News
    American Chronicle
    HuffPo
    ePluribus Media

    these are relatively easy to do, and once you have done so they get indexed as news by Google.

    now go for the rest -- the crux of the matter -- the MSM we disdain... basically because it does not print pieces like yours.

    NYT
    WaPo
    SF Chronicle
    LA Times
    Houston Chronicle
    and your paper.

    for this you will have to drop some of the references to La Blogosphera, and describe the the overview of the "liberal" and "progressive" dilema, lowered expectations  If you need help on any of this, let me know.  Ready, willing, able.

    and, by the way, Helena Montana has chosen to vote on the Lee amendment by referendum next November... so how's that for classy...

    What makes for such strange bedfellows (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by SoCali on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 11:09:15 PM EST
    Democrats, inexplicably--given the polls and election results-- signed on to a wishy-washy funding bill that accomplishes almost nothing while perpetuating the war. On the other hand. Murtha, by all measures a very conservative representative that channels military thinking has had a much more aggressive bill for months but could not get enough support from Democrats. Huh?
    The run up to the war, the war itself and now with civil war raging, our leaders can't be this out of step with public sentiment. What's up?
    Just when you think we might get some honesty, our Democratic leaders all parade to the AIPAC convention and sure enough, almost magically we get a watered-down, meaningless bill while conservative military man Murtha's former approach becomes a far-out liberal position. Why is this issue so surreal to watch?
    John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's article has an explanation that fits well. The neocons and AIPAC have been big supporters of the Iraq war. Carter began this discussion of AIPAC's domination of U.S. foreign policy as it relates to the Middle East and now Mearsheimer and Walt will publish a new book that will expand on their earlier article:
    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

    Every Democratic and Republican presidential contender should be asked about the role of this lobby as it relates to a balanced foreign policy in this critical region.
    It seems obvious that strings are being pulled in the background
    From the article,
    "The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress...as one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, `you can't have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.'"

    "In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association.
    A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington `muscle rankings'."

    What role did AIPAC play in this recent compromise legislation? The election is right around the corner, how much money was promised? These questions and answers deserve the light of day when we are sacrificing soldier's lives, our treasury and our national honor. Does anyone have a better explanation for the obvious disconnect between the public and our elected officials. When Murtha becomes the "progressive" on issues of war and peace, we need to talk.

    AIPAC has been buying off both sides (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 09:57:04 AM EST
    for years. So?

    That is no reason to not push back. It is a reason to push back as hard as possible.

    Parent

    So... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Peaches on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:42:56 AM EST
    it provides you with one reason why dems are not willing to push back as hard as possible or barely hard at all. AIPAC is more powerful than the anti-war progressive wing of the democratic party. Once again, money trumps people. It has been that way for years.

    That's the system we're working with. We get on the phone and call our congressional representatives. They listen and tally up the calls which should be in favor of ending the war as soon as possible. AIPAC and other lobby groups representatives then come knocking at the door of congressional members and begin talking money, political promises, and future campaigns. The Congressperson tells the lobbyist that their political position would be political suicide and cites the phone calls, emails and letters coming in that favor ending the war as soon as possible. From there a political compromise is worked out that satisfies both parties. That is the system we are working in. People can make their voices heard, but in the end it is the moneymakers with the political influence who are drafting the bills, not the congressional representatives.

    Parent

    So? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:55:30 AM EST
    That's what I said.

    Parent
    Just Esplainin', (none / 0) (#29)
    by Peaches on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:05:15 PM EST
    Not complainin'

    You can take a hard position, but it won't get very far in our political system - the way it is set up and the way Washington conducts business. All the handwringing and yelling and blaming barely gets at the root of the problem - money, and whose got it. The Iraq Supplemental bill is not about the Iraq war, it's about who has the money and who controls the purse strings. That is why defunding is a nice idea and certainly pragmatic it allowed to work as presented by BTD. But, the dems, and certainly not the anti-war progressive wing of the democratic party - regardless of the support they have in terms of majorities of Americans, nave no control over the purse strings in Washington, because they don't own the wealth in America.

    Just esplainin', is all.

    Parent

    I know you are 'Just esplainin', is all. ' (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:14:05 PM EST
    Everyone else here is trying to change it.

    Parent
    We have to change the system itself.... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:03:13 PM EST
    change within the system will not happen.  The system is doing what it is supposed to do...protecting wealth and future wealth.

    I mean that is the purpose of the system, isn't it...to protect existing wealth and generate more?  It sure as hell ain't protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  We are on our own in that regard.

    Parent

    Ouch, (1.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Peaches on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:31:03 PM EST
    Guilt and shame.

    Well, Edger,

    I think you are wasting your time. You're influence is nill. You're time spent on the internet blogging on the issues is rotting away your soul from the inside out. I've observed your progression over the past couple of years and you are losing your sanity. I feel for you, baby.

    Parent

    Peaches (1.00 / 2) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:13:53 PM EST
    Interesting observation. I'll go you one better - I am starting to wonder if TL and similar blogs aren't actively damaging our society/culture by enabling such soul rotting.

    Parent
    The internet (none / 0) (#39)
    by Peaches on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:37:16 PM EST
    is just Television Amplified. As Michael Franti says
    about

    Telvision -Its the drug of the nation
    Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation.

    Yes, I think our society and culture, with such a large emphasis on big media, technologies, internet, television, etc. is not only soul-rotting it is brain washing. Spend too much time blogging/online and you won't know who you are - just a puppet whose the fancy of a rather mad genius puppeteer.

    That's why we all need a day off once in a while (or better - a week, month or year), which we both know is the secret of remaining sane and self aware - others haven't figure that out.

    Parent

    Yup (none / 0) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:55:44 PM EST
    Take time to smell the flowers. btw, I have bud break in my vineyard.


    Parent
    Nice, (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Peaches on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 02:01:35 PM EST
    Reminds me of another Disposible Heroes of Hypocricy song.

    WaterPistol Man

    WaterPistol Man
    Full of Ammunition
    Putting out fires on a world wide mission
    Did you ever stop to squirt the flowers in your own backyard.

    Thats a perfect Metaphor for Edger. Trying to put out the Iraq war with a squirt gun.

    Parent

    Don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 05:19:34 PM EST
    Trying to put out the Iraq war with a squirt gun.

    Several million squirt guns equal a tsunami.

    Disclaimer: Not that I think your nastyness toward Edger does anything but reflect badly on you.

    Parent

    Ouch (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 02:27:35 PM EST
    although, to be fair, Edger's not the only one here...

    Parent
    Only if you take it too seriously.... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:58:52 PM EST
    I have strong opinions and enjoy sharing them and hearing others opinions...thats why I'm an everyday reader.  I'm not here under the illusion I'm changing the world...

    If and when change (aka revolution)comes..it will not be televised and the battle won't be on the internet.

    If you take it too seriously...soul-rotting will occur, I agree.  I've taken it all too seriously at times...then I remind myself I'm just a knucklehead in a world full of knuckleheads.


    Parent

    an analogy (1.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Peaches on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:54:59 PM EST
    would be kind of like the TL rating a comment. You actually think it accomplishes something and will determine which posters have "mojo".

    It is not that I disagree with you, as I think you are aware. It is just that I think you are pursuing a noble cause with a worthless strategy. Your voice is quite small and won't change a thing. You are the  little Chahauhau barking behind BTD as he opens the door. When you can think of something original to say, then you might be able to step out front of him and grow into one of the bigger dogs.

    But, you need to get out and see the world from a perspective other than a computer screen. Its nice out. Take a day off - not for my sake (I get too much enjoyment out of you as I contemplate the vast diversity of humanities' disfunctions. Go out side and smell the air. Go stand with some real activists at the state capital for an hour or two a week. Plant a tree, be a Big Brother. That's how you change the world, by changing yourself and your perspective of it.

    Parent

    Heh. That's quite an imagination you have... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    ...considering you have no knowledge of my life. But then, lack of facts has never stopped you before, has it? Have a nice day. ;-)

    Parent
    Planted five trees last week (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by TexDem on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:54:10 PM EST
    Have ten more coming from The National Arbor Day Foundation.

    Parent
    What horrible comment (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 05:00:30 PM EST

    Particularly from someone who has complained about incivility in the past.

    Shame on you.

    Parent

    An inept trolling comment (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 05:13:37 PM EST
    Not worth de-baiting, really. I don't expect better of him.

    Parent
    inept, (1.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Peaches on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 05:19:28 PM EST
    but you bite everytime.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Only to give you a chance, Peaches. (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 05:30:48 PM EST
    But all you use it for is to dig yourself a deeper hole. You could do better. But as I said, I don't expect better of you. I did... at one time.

    Parent
    You're a little late (1.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Peaches on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 05:17:59 PM EST
    doling out the shame this time. Edger beat you to it. see above.

    When you, like me, criticize others on civility we are being hypocrits, No? ;).

    Yes, it was horrible, but clever, right?

    Chihuahua, it's good, No? Just sort of Nipping by your heels, every once in awhile you give a little swipe with your foot and turning while still holding the door to say, "shush, Edger," and then turn back to your guest and say, "Don't mind him, he won't bite...You were saying?"

    I was just painting a picture. I fancy myself an artist.

    Parent

    Ah, what the hell (none / 0) (#61)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:12:04 AM EST
    Edger, BTD, Squeaky and DesertSwine,

    I don't have an answer for you. As far as civility, my mother always told me the first rule, "if you don't have something to say, don't say nothing at all."

    Did I insult Edger? Yes. Did he deserve it? That is for you to judge and you judge-no. But, go back and read the threads and be honest. Remember, BTD, when I asked you to be civil, you asked me to be fair. In my mind, I was fair, but thats another discussion. Read the thread. I made points. I gave an articulate argument and Edger dismissed it out of hand without a shred of integrity, and lays his purity BS on me about him trying to change something while my making a point - and an intellectually sound one at that - is, at best, irrelevant. As my mother said, "if you have nothing to say, don't say anything at all."

    Don't lecture civility to me BTD, and Squeaky (I love you) and Desertswine (love you too), you're rankings of my comments says what? Come on, talk. Show me what you got. If Edger won't engage me in an intellectual discussion, give it a shot yourself. Don't come running to the little Chihuahua's defense because I insulted him after the fact. You appear to me to be trying to win BTD's favor so you can be one of the pack. Too many Chihuahua in BTD's house. Its a little annoying having all those yippers barking knowing they have no bite, you know?

    Parent

    Uh huh... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 11:45:10 AM EST
    Still digging, Peaches?

    Parent
    YEP, (none / 0) (#63)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 11:53:11 AM EST
    And, You're still Yipping

    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#64)
    by Edger on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 11:55:20 AM EST
    can have the last word.

    Parent
    Function (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:36:44 PM EST
    Peaches- You asked, so here is my thoughts. Not much more than I already said. I just don't think calling people lapdogs here, who regularly contribute in what ever mostly positive way they can, or want to, makes you look good, not that you care. Not everyone is as normal as you, or cares to lead the kind of balanced life you have argued for.  For some of us blogging 24/7 is normal, fine and dandy.

    From my point of view you have more in common with Edger than not. For whatever reason you two clash, that seems a given. But to impugn Edger's motives for writing here by reducing him to a chiuaua sucking up to BTD makes you look bad, regardless of what flamed you....just my take.

    Not that I am innocent of any less. I have embarrassed myself plenty with foaming at the mouth, although I try to be more civil than not, these days.

    So, not to disappoint you but, I don't really have much to say about the content of your tiff. Just that you seemed to reach a low point, by trying to be hurtful. It did not work the way you intended. I would say it backfired.

    Parent

    Catastrophe afterwards (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 07:42:01 AM EST
    Catastrophe afterwards? What do you call what we have now?

    I have read it. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 08:16:34 AM EST
    I know how much worse it can get. I wonder if you do.
    ...............

    "Outsourcing Action in an Imperial World", TomDispatch:
    Even the Pentagon has finally acknowledged that a brutal civil war is underway in areas of Iraq; nonetheless, if we were to up and depart, it is agreed, a near genocidal-level bloodletting would certainly be in the cards. We are, in other words, the only force standing between the Iraqis and the "gates of hell." Yes, we may have loosed all this on them in the first place; yes, our tactics in the field may only clear the way for greater bloodshed; yet our "presence" remains their sole remaining hope. This is considered a reality of our world, a clear, if understandable, limit on American policy-making, whether Republican or Democratic.
    ...
    There is also, of course, something grimly self-fulfilling about this particular prophesy. If a single conclusion can be drawn about the U.S. presence in Iraq, it's this: The longer we have been there, the worse it's gotten. We've now reached the point where, with Americans "protecting" Iraqis from themselves, nearly one in five of them have nonetheless either fled their country, been forced into internal exile, or died in the mayhem. If you were projecting into the future, it would be far more logical to assume that, with us present, this situation would only worsen. (Of course, by now, both predictions might prove accurate.)
    ...
    But perhaps this sort of deep agreement on the "realities" of our world should not surprise us. After all, we're talking about a literal "conspiracy" here -- in the original Latin sense of the word: to con-spire once essentially meant to breathe the same air. Indeed, our politicians and top media figures do breathe the same air and, in a way that wasn't true decades ago, cohabit in the same rarified class atmosphere.
    ...
    This imperial mindset can, at its most kindly, be expressed in this way: In any situation where American "interests" are at stake, the United States can only be imagined as part of the solution, not part of the problem. In the present Iraqi situation, such thinking also represents an imaginative failure, your essential deck-of-the-Titanic strain of thinking.


    Then of course (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 08:23:22 AM EST
    As Usual I'm late to the party (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 09:31:36 AM EST
    Life has been calling a lot lately.  I find this diary and many of the comments very well thought out as well as depressing.  I take all this more personally and I don't know how not to.  Whenever my husband has to go to a part of the world without the family he brings home presents for everyone and our home is littered with trinkets from Iraq as well as from Germany and parts of Korea.  This is very depressing because there is no win, only degrees of losing lives from here on out for a very long time.  I made some eggs long ago when my son was very little and needed my constant presence.  It gave me something to do with my hands.  They are a real egg shell with Fimo carefully wrapped around them and then each decorated very differently, baked, then antiqued.  They are some of my favorite personal trinkets.  I have placed them in a metal bowl my husband brought me from Iraq.  The bowl is silver colored and has a peacock in the center, the fanned tail makes up the lifted sides of the bowl.  Easter has always been about rebirth for me but who knows when Iraq can experience a rebirth, it is all so much death now and Bush and Cheney wear all that blood.  It feels like they have crucified Iraq and now they are rolling dice for her garments.

    In Sirota's view (none / 0) (#2)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:23:00 PM EST
    the idea of NOT funding at all is dismissed out of hand. That's what I believe he's seeing as an unrealistic "purity" strategy, and there's something to be said for it. Funding up to a date certain and not beyond is fine, but there is something problematic in the sudden death alternative, i.e., not passing any bill at all.

    Furthermore, I think it's quite clear that while the Dem leadership might like to end the Iraq adventure, it's a secondary goal (and a far distant second) to winning the White House in 2008. Playing the game they're playing (talking ending the war but not seriously acting on it) may disgust the few percentage points of voters who understand what's going on, but at least it's safe and well-trod strategy and it doesn't risk the disaster that a real opposition action might engender if things go much more seriously wrong in the ME in the next 18 months. At least they can say they were supporting the troops and not tying the president's hands. (Though it didn't stop Cheney from accusing them of both those things over the weekend I was much amused to see.)

    And who has propsoed that? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 10:38:49 PM EST
    Feingold said 6 months after enactment.

    Make it a year.

    Parent

    Not funding? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 11:11:40 PM EST
    Sending a bill that won't pass the House or the Senate or that won't survive a veto is defacto not funding - not defunding via the bill but defunding via failing to pass one at all. That's what the complaints about purity relate to, not the cutting off funding by a particular date.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 11:13:31 PM EST
    There's two parts (none / 0) (#16)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 11:26:52 PM EST
    to the defunding strategy - 1) to give Bush what he wants up till a certain set date, and 2) that if he doesn't find that acceptable, by default give him nothing at all. The first part raises the objections about lacking numbers to pass it. The second implicit non-action part causes the purity complaints.

    Parent
    You've just descibed the Brer Rabbit scenario (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by TexDem on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:36:12 AM EST
    Under your number one.

    1) to give Bush what he wants up till a certain set date,

    and the date they have selected is September 08. This is just in time for Bush to 1) not care, 2) be used just before the election as an example of Dems having no stomach, 3) use other appropriated funds to finish out his term, (what are they going to do at that point, impeach him? yeah right)

    The Dems are playing this all wrong. Bush and Rove are playing Calvinball and the Dems are trying to play by rules when there are none.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:11:17 AM EST
    the Dems are trying to play by rules when there are none

    They might as well, as I said the other day, be trying to cut a deal with a Ted Bundy, when dealing with Bush/Cheney et al.

    Parent

    You'd think Dems would have learned by now (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:39:20 PM EST
    that there's no way to avoid getting attacked by the right wing, no matter the merits. Even complete capitulation brings nothing but public contempt from them. The only way to win is to never stop fighting for their position, no holds barred, no compromise except strategic compromise that furthers their own ends. Making ethical choices on policy in the first place would also help instead of mealy-mouthed finger-in-the-wind ones. I guess we can dream.

    Parent
    I guess we can dream. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:43:55 PM EST
    And push. Airplanes take off by flying into the wind?

    Parent
    Into the wind (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:49:48 PM EST
    Unfortunately, our ailerons seem to be falling off left and right lately...

    Parent
    Well (4.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:47:57 PM EST
    Lately it seems there are some on both left and right helping cut them off.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 02:15:38 PM EST
    Goals that provided cohesion are being dropped in favor of more personal considerations, with the Party and its political success in 2008 apparently leading the way. People seem to be completely losing their minds. Or maybe it's just COINTELPRO redux.

    Parent
    Interesting you should mention COINTELPRO (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 02:26:54 PM EST
    I imagine they are a little busier lately.

    Redux-ing. ;-)

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#40)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:38:54 PM EST
    It feels like they have crucified Iraq and now they are rolling dice for her garments.

    Very astute observation

    Never heard it..... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 02:21:19 PM EST
    I'll have to check it out....I've never really heard his stuff at all, but everybody knows the catch-phrase cuz it rings so true.

    Disposable Heroes...they were in heavy rotation back in the day, it's been a long time though, I need to re-discover them.

    Spearhead (none / 0) (#53)
    by Peaches on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 02:43:00 PM EST
    I don't know if you moved onto Michael Franti's project after Disposable.., but you need to check out Spearhead, if you haven't. SOme truly inspirational songs. His latest Yell, Fire is a masterpiece. And his DVD, I Know I'm not alone has to be the most moving project I've seen in a long time. He travelled to Bagdhad and the Gaza Strip in 2004 with his guitar and sang to anyone who would listen while recording local stories - truly awe-inspiring.

    Parent
    Michael Franti and Spearhead (none / 0) (#54)
    by Peaches on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 02:49:29 PM EST
    Will be at the Mountain Jam on June 1st in Hunter Mountain, NY.

    Parent
    meanwhile, the fun begins in the gulf (none / 0) (#51)
    by conchita on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 02:28:30 PM EST
    From MSNBC:
    The U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of Iran.

    The maneuvers bring together two strike groups of U.S. warships and more than 100 U.S. warplanes to conduct simulated air warfare in the crowded Gulf shipping lanes.

    The only thing missing at this point is the funding, and that's just a vote away.

    meanwhile, the fun begins in the gulf (none / 0) (#52)
    by conchita on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 02:35:00 PM EST
    From MSNBC:
    The U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of Iran.

    The maneuvers bring together two strike groups of U.S. warships and more than 100 U.S. warplanes to conduct simulated air warfare in the crowded Gulf shipping lanes.

    The only thing missing at this point is the funding, and that's just a vote away.