Iraq Supplemental: Was This The "Big Win?"

As usual, I speak only for me

Daily Kos trumpets the Senate's quick move on the Iraq Supplemental:

The Senate appears to be prepared to move quickly toward a vote on the supplemental spending bill containing language about benchmarks and withdrawal from Iraq that the House passed Friday - the vote could come as early as Tuesday. Republicans will be trying to remove all timetables from the bill - to them, even non-binding deadlines are too much an affront to Bush's power to wage endless war.

So now the fight is to retain NON-binding deadlines in the supplemental funding bill? Oh by the way, look and see who you'll be fighting with:

Webb doesn't favor a timeline for withdrawal, as the Nancy Pelosi bill passed by the House on Friday proposes . . . and he's working with Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel . . . to come up with a bipartisan bill that would incorporate some of what he calls "the more workable points" from the House bill without unnecessarily tying the hands of the military.
h/t MYDD.

What a win passing the House Iraq`supplemental funding bill was. What a bunch of unrealistic purity types those of us opposed to it were. Why, who could have imagined the Senate would likely weaken the bill? But hey, it was the best Dems could do, right? Clap louder please.

< David Hicks Military Commission Proceeding to Start...Or Not | Gonzo's Support Erodes? Like Abandoning Ship? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    My advice to the Dems (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:37:56 AM EST
    comes from Harvey Keitel's character Mr Wolf in "Pulp Fiction"'s A Bonnie Situation:

    "Let's not all start sucking each other's d***s just yet".

    Great line Che.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:26:39 PM EST
    I use it often....in fact I used it yesterday at halftime of my bar-league football game when we were up 2 scores against a dangerous offensive team and guys started assuming the W.

    You an oak man Jimmy?

    I'd tell the Dem congress "Don't Jimmy me Jules...don't Jimmy me."


    Senator Harry Reid (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by leoncarre on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 12:06:10 PM EST
    "After four years of failure in Iraq, the president's only answer is to do more of the same," said Sen. Harry Reid.

    "What we are doing in Iraq is policing an intractable civil war," Reid said sternly to the press, as Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Joe Biden (D-DE) and others stood beside him.

    "We believe that this is wrong, we Democrats believe that," said Reid. "We believe the President should be held accountable," he continued, "for a new direction in Iraq." He panned the Republican plan for Iraq as being just a blank sheet piece of paper.

    "We are now an occupying force," Reid said grimly. "The United States an 'occupying force,' it's hard for me to say those words."

    March 14, 2007

    Militarytracy (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 12:25:05 PM EST
    The military won the war, and at a greater cost than the war mongers would have us believe. The politicians then lost it.

    Lost Opportunity for the Real Debate (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by leoncarre on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    "If but a handful, literally, of the "anti-war" Democrats (in Congress) voted against the bill, there would be no war funding. A crisis would be precipitated and a real debate over the war would have to begin in the Congress."

    Turncoats in the Peace Movement
    The Democrats' War Funding Debacle
    March 26, 2007

    Something that seems odd... (4.66 / 3) (#3)
    by roy on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:27:44 AM EST
    If this bill has so little impact, why are the Republicans bothering to oppose it?

    Big Tent (1.00 / 4) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:38:01 AM EST
    I recognize your sarcasm..

    Not just this, but your total comment structure is technical points in support of ending the war on terror.

    War is a moral issue, yet you never want to discuss the underlying issue, which truly is the class of two cultures.

    By doing so you remind me of monks in the Middle Ages who spent all of their free time arguing over how many angels could dance on the head of a needle.

    Re: you never want to discuss the underlying issue (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:50:05 AM EST
    You're a day late. And more than a dollar short.

    Nothing new.


    That's curious. (1.33 / 3) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 10:30:00 AM EST
    I have brought the underlying issues to the table time and again, but all you can do is yell about the war. I have never read a reason by you, squeaky, BTD, et al that says why we should not challenge those who seek to dominate us, and the world.

    When I have asked for specific responses on specific issues, NONE of you have  responded.

    All I read is "war bad." Bush bad.  Cheney bad. etc., etc.

    I know what your opinion is. Tell me why you believe it to be right.

    History? Personal experience? Religious belief?

    That you can not leads to me believe that you have nothing but a hatred for the US, and that you can't tolerate anything the US tries to do.

    If I am, wrong, please show me where I am wrong.

    What are your bedrock beliefs and where did they come from??


    IMHO the discordance here lies (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by conchita on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 01:46:50 PM EST
    possibly in your fear that there are those in the world who seek to dominate us as compared to my fear that our active attempts to dominate others - as in Iraq, Africa and Latin America - is destroying our and others ability to exist peacefully and cooperatively in what is left of this planet.  We have much larger environmental crises facing us than the WMD that the Iranians aren't close to having or even threatening us with (any more than Saddam Hussein was).  If we worked together with other nations to address the world's intertwined environmental and energy crises rather than threaten and make plans to bomb them, we'd be looking at a much brighter twenty-first century.

    Honestly, I'm not quite sure why I decided to respond to your comment; normally, I just read past them.  I guess I am just so angry that our response to 9-11 has created a cycle of violence that threatens to engulf the world, and sadly, I firmly believe that we, not them, are at fault.


    conchita (1.00 / 2) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:22:28 PM EST
    You use the word fear, that is not accurate.

    We have documented comments by OBL and others that we must not interfere with the actions of Moslems.

    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

    BIN LADIN: .......So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

    Interview of OBL by Peter Arnett of CNN in 3/97.

    Would you agree that his comments are very plain and easy to undersand??

    Please provide proof that we are at fault.


    I have. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:44:25 PM EST
    Many times. So have many others.

    Still trolling. Nothing new.


    Not to mention ... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Sailor on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:33:02 PM EST
    ... Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs, (which were the excuse for the war, before the war;-)

    And your point is.......?? (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 10:26:52 PM EST
    The question dear ones has nothing to do with Iraq, or Iran.. It is a question of where your collective heads are at.

    Why do you, each and every time, disagree with whatever the US is trying to do??

    Why do you deny the available information regarding the intent of the terrorists?

    After all, Bush and company will be gone in slightly under two years. What is your strategy for defending the country??

    Do you think the terrorist attacks in England will remain in England?

    The killing of critics of the radicals... Do you think that will remain in Holland??

    The demand that the separation of church and state be voided so that Moslem females can wear the required head covering in school will remain in France?

    You do think the country is worth defending, don't you??

    I mean since you want your man to be in charge, and since that means asking for support... what is that you are supporting, and want others to support????

    Can you articulate it? Put it into understandable sentences with some facts? (BTW - Claims aren't facts. See the dictionary.)

    I await your answers with great anticipation.


    No edger, (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:11:40 PM EST
    you talk about "working with the world, etc., but you give no answer to the questions. A most important one would be, how can you work with someone who has vowed to destroy you?

    Can you explain how you would do that, and what led you to believe that you can?


    I have (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:35:42 PM EST
    You know where. Follow the link above.

    the sad reality is that this administration (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by conchita on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 10:13:19 PM EST
    has done just what the radical fundamentalists want them to do.  our support for israel in its crimes against the palestinians, the travesty we encouraged in lebanon, and our destruction of iraq have all engendered arab resentment of the u.s.  we have no one but ourselves to blame.

    conchita (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 10:29:22 PM EST
    Ah yes. The old, "It's the Jews fault," position.

    We have seen that before... In Germany, for example.. early 30's wasn't it?


    Thanks ppj (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 10:42:06 PM EST
    For once again showing that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were right on target. It is true that any critisism of Israel invokes claims of anti-semitism.

    Sometimes dear squeaky, (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 10:57:42 PM EST
    the charge is correct.

    What we see here is that the Left can not support Israel because Israel is a friend fo the US and an enemy of the terrorists.

    And after all, isn't an enemy to your friend an enemy to you?


    Read the link, ppj. READ the link. For once. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 10:32:00 AM EST
    Not enough (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 12:42:39 PM EST
    So your reasoning is that someone thinks their daughters will wear burkhas because of your actions  and you think she is silly? Stupid? Both?

    Surely you have an actual reason besides an argument and a belief that, I guess, diversity will solve all problems. Hint. It won't.

    The problem isn't "Moslems," but multiple groups of radical Moslems who have committed various acts of terrorism against the US, various other countries and other Moslems of a different sect.

    Compounding that problem is that the remaining Moslems, or perhaps I should say the vast majority of the remaining Moslems in countries with a Moslem majority will go along to get along. They are, in effect, watching what the West will do. If the West appears weak, the Moslem majority will side with the radicals.

    Is this true in liberal western democracies as well? I don't know, but watching what is happening in Europe where we have seen crimes committed by second generation Moslems, the early results are not conclusive, but indicate that the Islamic faith, when in the hands of radicals, is capable of developing a whole new group of terrorists.

    But none of that says why you are anti-war. Or, if you think it does, I see nothing there of any real significance. Do you have more?

    BTW - Having spent 10 years in Naval Aviation I have a far amount of understanding of the military. And yes, there were gays in the military, but reflecting the then civilian culture, it was "don't ask, don't tell and don't get caught."

    I don't believe that you spent 10 yrs (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 08:16:14 AM EST
    in Naval Aviation, if you really had you would know that don't ask don't tell only soothes the civilian Christian masses.  If a gay person is outed in the military they do run the risk of a commander with "issues" getting them discharged but by and large most gays in the military are very safe.  Even safer now that troop numbers have hit the redline.  My issue with people who are prowar is that they have an "us them" mentality and because of this war their military is becoming manned by the "them".  I find this whole charade enormously funny.  I don't disagree with you that radical Muslims are our enemy, so are radical Christians who murder and bomb things they profess to hate.  Iraq was not full of radical Muslims though so why are we wasting all of our precious resources there?  We are giving Muslims in Iraq plenty of reason to embrace radical Islam though by what we have done there and continue to do.  Nifty little trick those that love war have cooked up, creating the enemy so they can fight it.

    So sad to watch Webb (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 10:54:03 AM EST
    take this approach and work in this direction.  It is sometimes hard for soldiers to realize that their work is done.  I know this because I live with one.  Sometimes he too will throw out another possible military solution for the mess we call Iraq and I have to remind him that the military work is done in Iraq.  What is required is a political solution now.  Sometimes it's hard for all of us to realize that our particular brand of work is finished in a certain scenario that has gone so wrong and now all that is left is for everyone else to do their job and hopefully we can arrive at some sort of decent outcome.  Too bad though huh?  I can't father children and there isn't another military solution to the problems in Iraq!  Tying the military's hands means squat nothing Webb, whether you tie their hands or not their hands cannot fix what ails Iraq from here but those hands can make its ailments worse!

    It's really simple. (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 12:45:58 PM EST
    The purpose of all of this is to provide a stable enough situation for a politcal settlement to take hold. The second purpose is to insure that the political settlement is favorable to the US.

    That we have several groups in Iraq opposing this is why we need the military.


    It's a nice idea (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:45:46 PM EST
    But can you get there from here?

    We're not stabilizing the place and I don't think we ever can with the level of commitment we have made.

    Maybe five times the forces and expense might do it over a number of years.

    So the real debate should be over whether to quintuple the commitment or to give it up as a lost cause.

    Personally, I don't think we have the manpower or money to do it. Certainly there's no political will for that level of commitment.

    But as far as the status quo goes, I think it does US strategic interests much more harm than good.


    Re: more harm than good (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:20:28 PM EST
    h/t to Conchita

    From Tom Engelhardt's "Outsourcing Action in an Imperial World" at TomDispatch:
    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.

    "We're not stabilizing the place.." (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 11:03:33 PM EST
    How do you know that we can't?

    It seems to me that you have something called an opinion. Do you have any factual proof?

    (And please. No links to Left Wing blog sites or retired Generals who will do anything for attention.)

    BTW - The reports coming out are very positive.
    Doesn't that just frost your "I hate war" placard?


    "The reports coming out... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 03:06:35 AM EST
    are very positive," you say.
    I sure haven't seen any such. And if there were any credible reports that things are going well, it would be all over the MSM.

    Believe me, I'd be very happy to think we're doing something constructive over there. So would most Americans. The demand for this kind of news is there, so the fact that none is being published is strong evidence that there isn't any.


    He knows that (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 03:50:21 AM EST
    He's only wants any response from you.

    i agree (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by conchita on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 07:28:42 AM EST
    i think we've been very generous with our attentions.  today i'm going to be too busy making the phone calls to my reps and harry reid - which sadly don't seem to make much difference, but must be made nevertheless (as i am reminded by ufpj, codepink, pda, and the pen, as well as my own conscience).  my thought - forget this little troll and call at senator today.

    You are so funny (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 08:19:29 AM EST
    You just keep repeating the same crud over and over and over again and ignore that it has not worked for four years now.  The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.....hmmmmmm.

    A bit of sarcasm: (none / 0) (#15)
    by mentaldebris on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 01:12:41 PM EST
    But, but, but, this legislation is only the beginning of a flurry of weak legislative moves that will not only right the wrongs of the last six years (I'm sure we'll be seeing the compromised repeal of the "Patriot" Act and the AUMF any day now) but will give Americans fresh breath and a brighter smile. Meanwhile Bush sits cackling on his throne.


    pessimistic, cynical, amateur liberal purist

    P.S. I read this morning Bush will veto it in its present form. I thought he was simply going to veto it to spite Pelosi. Guess I was wrong.

    Coming up next -- a Senate makeover. Watch the amazing transformation.

    Shorter PPJ (none / 0) (#17)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:14:21 PM EST
    Our domination of the world would be much easier if not for these pesky radical muslims.

    Che (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:13:18 PM EST
    Can you show us this magical domination of the world that we have?

    And can you quantify why you are opposed to everything the country does??


    it's all about ppj (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Sailor on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:44:18 PM EST
    We no longer have a 'domination' of the world. We lost the high ground when neocons started a war against a country that had no WMDs, no connection to 9/11 and no ability to harm us.

    And those same neocons have ruined the country's military to the point where if we had an actual war to fight we could not win it.

    And can you quantify why you are opposed to everything the country does??
    Not everything the country does, just what an ever increasing minority of shrill warmongers and bloodthirsty lynching advocates desire.

    Let's not forget that these same type of US dominationistas were for the terrorists before they were against them. Just as ppj has supported arming saddam and the taliban with the very same weapons that they are now using to kill Americans.


    We never had a domination, (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 10:50:45 PM EST
    nor did we want one.

    But let's argue.

    Tell me what domination we had prior to 9/11?

    BTW - Show me the proof that we couldn't win a war.

    You can't.

    BTW - Do you think we did the right thing in arming the Soviets during WWII?

    If not, what not? I mean we were in deep dodo fighting Germany.

    If so, what is the difference between that and arming the Taliban to fight the Soviets, and supporting Saddam in fighting Iran.

    Did we do a moral wrong in helping all three of these groups?

    Would you prefer that Germany won, Iran took over the ME and the Soviets Afghanistan??

    And since we helped all three groups, didn't they do a moral wrong when they turned against us??


    The truth about MoveOn's email poll (none / 0) (#19)
    by conchita on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:26:33 PM EST
    by Digby .  Anyone who suspected it was a farce is proven right.  Wtf that they play with lives like this??  And to think that some out there think MoveOn is a radical lefty group.  Feels like chewing glass.  Betrayed by our own.

    whoops that should have been at digby (none / 0) (#21)
    by conchita on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:31:44 PM EST