Blame Democrats? The President's Stupid Prediction

The administration is batting about .000 in making predictions -- Iraqi citizens will welcome the U.S. with open arms; the war might last six days, six weeks, probably not six months; a fearsome supply of WMD's will be seized after the invasion; etc. Why, then, should we credit the president's claim that the American public will "blame Democrats" if he vetos the supplemental funding bill? Memo to the president: if the public believes someone deserves blame for not funding the troops, the blame will fall on the person who vetos funding, not on the Democrats who approved it.

Get over yourself, Mr. President.

< Ocean Beach Police Indicted | Longest Sentence Ever Imposed On Tax Cheat >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Dennis Kucinich (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 12:35:54 PM EST
    today on Democracy Now!

    the Democrats' position should have been and can still be, that we refuse to fund the war, that we don't give this president a dime to keep the war going, that we use money in the pipeline to bring the troops home and set in motion a parallel process that would secure Iraq. We're under no obligation to keep this war going.

    But I would say, Amy, that if you look at the budget, which is facing Congress tomorrow, it provides not only $145 billion for fiscal year `08 for the war, for all of it, but another $50 billion for fiscal year 2009. I wonder how that squares with Democratic leaders' position that they want to bring the troops home in March or in September of next year. There's something that's contradictory here.

    So I'm going to try to see if I can reconcile that today in Congress by talking to leadership and alerting my fellow members that money is in the budget to keep this war going past President Bush's term. President Bush has been very clear. He's going to keep this war going through the end of his term. I say that American should get out now, that it's not a choice between President Bush or keeping the war going another year, year and a half. We need to get out now, and we need to let the troops know we truly support them, by bringing them home.

    If all that emerges are goals or non-binding... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by cal11 voter on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 01:46:50 PM EST
    deadlines or benchmarks, then President Bush will not need to veto.  In that case, Bush is right that the blame will fall on the Democrats for failing to take concrete action to end the Iraq War.

    What matters is what he will do (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 03:26:09 PM EST
    and even Kucinich says he'll veto the bill.

    Our decisions have to be way above politics. We have the lives of our troops at stake here. There's no military victory in Iraq. We're there illegally. The occupation is fueling the insurgency. Democrats can still, after president Bush vetoes the bill, which he will, Democrats can still take the right position, which is refuse to fund the war, use money in the pipeline to bring the troops home.

    Of course, Kucinich could be wrong and Bush is going to orchestrate a masterfull end-around and embarass all the Dems because Rove and he are playing the Dems for fools. But, Kucinich is taking the pragmatic, if not also the principled, approach to keep fighting for the troops and bring them home and not sitting on his laurels blaming the Democratic leadership for a weak bill. He is preparing for the veto - which is what all good pragmatist are doing. The fight goes on.


    Timetable is nothing to him. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Edger on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:15:32 PM EST
    Signing statement gets rid of it.

    They will blame them (4.66 / 3) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 11:56:44 AM EST
    if they don't end the war.

    Bush has it backwards.

    But the Dems have not put themselves in the right position on this. They will fund the war.

    But they will not announce a date certain for not funding it.

    That is the flaw in the Dems; approach here.

    The confrontation is set up in a way that the Dems WILL blink.

    The House bill was where the mistake was made.

    Dperl99's at Kos (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 03:35:39 PM EST
    Had a good analysis of Bush motivations, yesterday:
    As we all know, 59% of Americans back the troop withdrawal deadline.

    Bush has also set a drop dead date of April 15th, after which "our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions."

    How quickly the tables turn.  If the Senate passes a similar bill next week, with the easter recess coming up, a Bush veto will almost certainly mean that the April 15th deadline will not be met.  Thus you will have The President refusing to accept funding for his war because he refuses to accept conditions supported by a vast majority of Americans.

    I suspect what Bush would do is sign the bill with some type of signing statement saying that the deadline is an unconstitutional infringement of his C in C powers and therfore he is not bound by it.  He'll figure once they've appropriated the money there's nothing else they can do and by the end of 2008 it'll be someone else's problem anyway.

    Is he bluffing? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 03:58:52 PM EST
    If so, why?

    What would be his point, now? Why is he still insisting he will veto, if he has no intention to veto it?

    From the NYTIMES.

    Now, some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely," Mr. Bush said. "That's not going to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible."

    The president, speaking to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association here a day after the Senate endorsed the withdrawal of most American troops by March 31, 2008, said that the people of Iraq had already shown their desire to run their own country by voting in free elections, that Iraqi security forces are gaining strength with American help, and that the outcome in Iraq "will affect a generation of Americans."

    Far from sounding conciliatory, Mr. Bush hurled a dismissive dart at the lawmakers as he asserted that the emergency war-spending bills approved by the House and under consideration by the Senate were loaded with special-interest items, some of them downright silly.

    "There's $3.5 million for visitors to tour the Capitol and see for themselves how Congress works," Mr. Bush said, drawing laughs from the friendly audience. "I'm not kidding you."

    "Here's the bottom line," Mr. Bush went on. "The House and Senate bills have too much pork, too many conditions on our commanders and an artificial timetable for withdrawal. And I have made it clear for weeks if either version comes to my desk, I'm going to veto it." (Mr. Bush has used his veto power only once, in 2005, to reject a measure that would have expanded federal financing for embryonic stem cell research.)

    Bluff and insist he'll veto (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:05:58 PM EST
    trying to force as much watering down as possible in the Senate before he signs it for the money, and attaches a signing statement saying he has no intention of being bound by whatever other restrictions are left in?

    He would end up with less criticism over the signing statement?

    At most, (none / 0) (#8)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:10:30 PM EST
    He might get some pork removed, I doubt the timeline will get thrown out and that is what he is contesting. If he is betting on not receiving criticism, he's dumber than he looks and that's pretty darn dumb.

    The guy is more stubborn than dumb. I don't think he will back down on this. He is the decider and he has decided there will be no timetable for a withdrawal. That fits within his character. But, I could be fooled.

    methinks you protest too much (none / 0) (#10)
    by diogenes on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:32:49 PM EST
    If Bush is so obviously wrong about the veto, why be so angry at him?  Quietly let him veto and see where the blame falls.  Already the pork is creating a distraction, and no impartial person can give the House credit for not passing a straight up and down bill.  If Congress's ratings are as low as the president's, that's a big win for Bush.