Saturday, November 10, 2007

Will they stand firm this time, or cave yet again?

The current occupant of the oval office will succeed in running out the clock on his failed Iraq fiasco, and dump it in the lap of the next president. That’s a given. The casualties mean nothing to him, he has no skin in the game, and neither do any of the “people” who comprise the jackasses’ base.

He wanted just under $200 billion to continue the mission of completely wrecking Iraq and ushering about a thousand Americans a year to an early grave. Heckuva job, that.

On Thursday the House Democrats said he should hold the phone.

[keep reading]

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that the congress would give him $50 billion to continue operations for about four months, and that there would be strings attached, including a mandate that the (still undefined) mission be restricted. If the Resident vetoes it, she said she would not send him another bill this year. “This is not a blank check fir the president. This is providing funding for the troops limited to a particular purpose, for a short time frame.”

Bush’s fetid, soulless mouthpiece Tony Fratto got his knickers in quite a twist and said that any bill containing “artificial timelines” for withdrawal would be vetoed. “We should be supporting our troops as they are succeeding, not finding ways to undercut their mission,” he whined.

(Let’s put that “success” in perspective, shall we? As of the end of May, more air strikes had been used than in all of 2006. And 2007 is already the deadliest year for Americans in Iraq – with over a month and a half to go. Then there is the fact that the ethnic cleansing has been largely successful, and that has lead to a decrease in sectarian violence in that beleaguered nation.)

Congressional Democrats are in a tight spot – you might say they are between Iraq and a hard place. They were returned to the majority in the 2006 elections by a public that is sick to death of the Deserter in Chief’s vanity war. But, being Democrats, they are split on how to proceed. Some say the war must be funded while troops are in harms way, and they fear that the craven, soulless fuck “president” would simply abandon troops in the field and leave them stranded. He is just about that petty and pathetic, so those fears are not entirely unjustified.

Several of the anti-war liberals in the House said on Thursday that they were tentatively willing to get behind Pelosi this time – provided the Speaker will not cave as she has in the past, and send him the money he wants anyway if he vetoes the spending bill. “What I don’t want to do is get on this merry-go-round where we try to end this war and negotiate it down to a blank check. It’s time to play hardball,” said Democratic Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts.

And if they can't manage that...then We, the People need some new, authentic, fire-breathin' DEMOCRATS. They have a short period of time to show us something,then screw 'em. Primary challenges it is!