Despite Record Low Poll Numbers, Bush Still Bullies Wimpy Democrats

George W. Bush is one of the most unpopular presidents ever. He has record low poll numbers. He is a lame-duck president.

Given his seemingly weak position, how does Bush continue to bully the Democrats? Good question.

The fact is, these days, Bush is actually less compromising than ever. And the wimpy Democrats continue to roll over for Bush.

Take the looming showdown on Capitol Hill over Bush's war funding. As the Associated Press pointed out, Bush has promised to veto any bill that exceeds his pending $108 billion request for war funding.

This is actually a tougher line than Bush took last spring, when he accepted $17 billion in domestic funding as part of a $120 billion war funding measure, AP notes.

The extra spending the Democrats have proposed includes $12.7 billion in funding to extend unemployment benefits. Bush has also signaled he'll oppose increased funding for GI Bill benefits for veterans.

So not only does Bush expect the Democrats to rubberstamp his war funds request, he's not even willing to compromise on the spending bill this time around.

AP notes that the GOP is actually eager to "battle with Democrats over add-ons to the war funding bill." So not only is Bush bullying Democrats, but his fellow Republicans continue to solidly support him as though he were enjoying robust approval ratings.

How can the clout of an unpopular lame duck like Bush actually be rising these days? The only reason I can come up with is that the Democrats have shown themselves to be such pushovers, that Bush knows he can get away with bullying them. If there's anything that emboldens a bully, it is wimpy behavior.

There's more: "Despite Record Low Poll Numbers, Bush Still Bullies Wimpy Democrats" >>

Obey Stands Up...Again

Once more, David Obey (D, WI 07) has done what he alone among congress-critters, Democrat or Republican, seems able to do.

He took a principled stand.

The $522 Billion omnibus spending bill that had been scheduled for a House Vote today was held up when Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee Obey announced last night that he would not file it, and recommended the bill be scrutinized and revised before it goes to a floor vote. Obey, clearly disgusted, said he is prepared to cut billions from domestic programs and eliminate all earmarks for home-state spending projects, which congresspersons of both parties are addicted to.

“I’m not in the business of trying to pave the way for $70 billion or $90 billion for Iraq for $10 billion in table scraps,” Obey said. “We asked Bush to compromise. He has chosen to go the confrontation route.”

“I want no linkage what-so-ever between domestic [spending] and the war. I want the war to be dealt with totally on its own. We shouldn’t be trading off domestic priorities for the war.”

In October, you may recall, Obey put a hold on the $190 Billion war supplemental spending bill lusted after by Chimpy McWarPorn, announcing that until there is a definitive change of course where the unholy clusterfuck of Iraq is concerned, there would be no supplemental spending legislation coming out of committee, Nancy and Steny (especially Steny) be damned.

The omnibus bill was the product of weeks of wrangling and back-room wheeling and deakling, and had been an attempt to find some middle ground with the administration, which upon losing the majority in that thumpin' last November got the fiscal responsibility religion and joined a cult with some weird ideas. Bush wanted $10.6 Billion cut from the spending bills passed by the House last summer, while simultaneously addign emergency funds for the State Department and for border security, a pet issue of the Republican party.

Obey is not just directing his anger at the Bush administration, but at his congressional colleagues as well, especially Steny Hoyer, whose comments last week suggested a trade-off was in the works - war funds for domestic spending.

Liberal blogs - this one included - went nuts.

In order for the bill to ratchet down to the spending levels Resident Evil™ would sign would have required cuts that would have effectively frozen many agencies spending levels at 2007 levels. Obey said, in effect, "fuck that notion." Okay - what he really said was “If we’re going to lose we might as well lose with clarity so that people understand who is responsible for those inadequate investments,” the combative Obey said. “And if you take those bills down to the president’s level, it is very hard for me to understand how earmarks can survive. It’s not a threat. It’s a reality. Win or lose, we have to move on,” Obey said. “I don’t want to chew last year’s cud 15 more times. I’m willing to win. I’m willing to lose fair and square. I just want to cut the bull gravy and get to the bottom line.”

Democrats caution that Obey's strident stand is not mere posturing. There is a growing impatience both among the anti-war Democrats in Congress and among constituents in everyones district.

Good for Obey - if there is only one set of stones in Congress, I'm glad they belong to the guy who chairs Appropriations. And I wish the entire Democratic side of the aisle would have breakfast tomorrow from that same box of Wheaties. Maybe if they did, they could truly give aWol what I want to give him for Christmas...a stroke.
[That's all...]

There's more: "Obey Stands Up...Again" >>

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!

There's more: "Will they stand firm this time, or cave yet again?" >>

Harry's Hooey Dog And Pony Show

On the surface, and from what people all over the blogosphere are saying, you would think that Harry Reid's announcement on Monday that he, as the Democratic Senate leader, was going to get tough and make the Republicans filibuster through Tuesday night was some type of seminal turning point. The Democrats are finally getting some cojones and standing up to the Republican thugs obstructing progress in the Senate. But, if you really start digging a little, it appears that there is still a cloture vote set for Wednesday morning irrespective of what occurs in between now and then in the Senate, and the Democrats still must obtain 60 votes for that cloture vote on Wednesday morning in order for the bill to go to an up or down vote on the floor. Come Wednesday morning, the Democrats will still be short of the 60 votes necessary to gain cloture and have an up or down vote on the merits of the bill. And this all assumes that Reid can get a quorum in the first place. Why any Republican would show up for this nonsense is hard to imagine. Tim Johnson is not fit to attend, and Lieberman, well, he is just not fit period, and will undoubtedly not be helping his former party. A quorum (51 Senators) may be difficult to gather.

Oh, and about that all important "30 hour" provision that has been so ballyhooed. It doesn't apparently apply as that is the maximum length of debate that can be had AFTER a successful cloture vote of 60 or more votes which, again, the Democrats still appear to be well short of. Some solace can be taken from the fact that the Levin/Reed Bill is a toothless pile of pablum that does absolutely nothing to force the Administration to initiate withdrawal from Iraq in the first place, so no great loss.

Unless I am missing something in this analysis, the only way Harry's hooey stands to have any impact is if Reid keeps repeating the stunt over and over, requiring the calendar of the Senate be cleared for the remainder of the little prime time left before their recess. But Harry Reid won't do that; which makes this a pretty weak and lame gesture. It may get some PR, but it also is an admission of how gutless our leaders really are.

It is time to "end our long national nightmare". Defund the war (funding bills do not require the 60 vote cloture step; they go to a regular vote), and, if Bush doesn't bring the troops home, impeach him and then put him in the criminal docks for the wiretapping violations and any other crimes for which there is solid probable cause. I am tired of Harry Reid's pansy charades and the respective Judiciary Committee's lame letters begging the Administration to pretty please play nice. Lets get on with it.

There's more: "Harry's Hooey Dog And Pony Show" >>

Drip, Drip, Drip

In what is becoming the political equivalent of the Chinese Water Torture (appropriately enough), yet another stalwart for Bush's Iraq War policy has decided that withdrawal is the right course.

Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, saying the political "tide has turned'' on the Iraq War, backed forcing President George W. Bush to withdraw U.S. troops and predicted that more Republicans will abandon his war policy.

Snowe's decision, five days after New Mexico Republican Pete Domenici called for a new U.S. military policy in Iraq, reflects the wavering support for Bush's war policy within the president's own party in the Senate.

Snowe said she is considering lending her support to an amendment, still being drafted by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, which would require troop withdrawals to begin within 120 days.

Unlike Domenici, Snowe is not up for reelection in 2008.

There's more: "Drip, Drip, Drip" >>

Talk is Cheap

Playing the part of a dissenting senator can get you a few spins in the network news cycle, but until you put up, you may as well shut up (honestly, how hard is it for a GOP senator to come out against policies of a president whose popularity has fallen to 26%?).

Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia is giving the GOP-Iraq doubting troika of Voinovich, Lugar & Domenici a low-cost (in terms of reputation) chance to do their putting up.

Following the three deadliest months of the war, Democrats are forcing President Bush and Iraqis to finally accept some measure of accountability for this war through the Defense Authorization bill this week. Starting off the debate, Webb will introduce an amendment to the bill that requires active-duty troops to have at least the same amount of time at home as the length of their previous tour overseas.

Why is supporting this amendment such a safe move for the troika? Because it is absolutely the least they can do both to demonstrate real support for our troops in harm's way and stick a finger in the eye of the (mis)administration which has so ill-treated our troops.

No mention of withdrawal timetables. Hell, no mention of even providing adequate body armor and properly armored vehicles for troops on patrol in dangerous forward areas. We're simply talking about a chance for returning troops to have an adequate chance to rest, recuperate and get their personal & family affairs in order before being fed back into the meatgrinder.

If these three GOP senators cannot do at least this much for our fighting men & women, then I sure as hell don't expect to see their fatuous faces on my Sunday talk shows again anytime soon.

There's more: "Talk is Cheap" >>

Senate Dems plan Iraq timetables again: an analysis

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to attach two Iraq timetable amendments to the 2008 defense appropriations bill.

Without immediately looking at the possibility of success, there are two incidents which do bring this back to the forefront (not counting Congressional Democrats’ sagging approval ratings as an “incident”).

First is Gen. Martin Dempsey’s admission that training of Iraq army and security forces remains inadequate, even woefully so:

Describing the U.S. effort in Iraq as a labor of Sisyphus, he said the metaphoric stone is “probably rolling back a bit right now in Baghdad. But I don't think it's going to roll over us.”

Dempsey depicted the level of violence tolerated by Iraqis as “mind-numbing” and acknowledged that a dearth of security has made some Iraqis nostalgic for the rule of Saddam Hussein, who was ousted by the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. “You’ll hear people say, ‘You know, we were a lot more secure and safe during the Saddam regime,’ “ he told the oversight panel of the House Armed Services Committee.

Second is Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe’s direct blaming of Bush, and Bush’s stubbornness MO, for the 2006 loss of the Senate:

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said she thinks her former GOP colleagues Sens. Mike DeWine (Ohio) and Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) lost reelection because of Bush’s unpopularity.

“It’s definitely because of the president and his policies, more from the standpoint of immovability and not being willing to adjust policies in response to real-time circumstances,” she said. “It wasn’t just the fact that things weren’t working well in Iraq, it was the president wasn’t willing to adjust his policy to recognize and acknowledge that.”

Last year’s losses at the polls have shaped her Republican colleagues’ view of the president in 2007, she said, adding, “All of that had manifested itself in ways this year, leading to concerns about the president’s policies.”

Now, we’ve heard enough of this in the past, but, as the drip, drip, drip of not-so-good news from people like Gen. Dempsey picks up, senators and representatives may in fact start distancing themselves more.

Key for seeing how Republicans move is seeing how this plays out in their presidential primaries battle. Already, while trying to out-macho each other on terrorism in general, most GOP candidates not named McCain are trying to detach from Iraq itself, and even Big John has been somewhat critical.

Reid has plenty of GOP senator sound-bite quotes, in other words. Let’s see how well he plays his cards.

Because, between discontentment over Democrats’ previous “cave” and knowing how the Rovian PR machine works, Reid (and Speaker Pelosi) need to have their own PR work ready in advance. That’s where quotes from GOP presidential debates and elsewhere on the hustings will come in handy — rhetorically asking GOP senators if they want to be sticking their necks out at the same time their would-be presidential nominees are drawing theirs in?

Cross-posted at Socratic Gadfly.

There's more: "Senate Dems plan Iraq timetables again: an analysis" >>

Crossposted from "Edging" - Defunding Iraq: Misperceptions, Disinformation And Lies

For the nightowls - I asked edger to email me the html for the post I referred to earlier so I could crosspost it here. He complied, and here it is:

Go vote in the poll at DKos.

The entire debate about NOT funding the occupation of Iraq and George W. Bush's Iraq and Mid-East Debacle revolves around one piece of propaganda that has been sold to the public in one of the most heinous aggregations of misperceptions, disinformation, and outright lies ever foisted on a public that cares for the lives of the American troops sent into Iraq, of which there are huge mis-perceptions and an incredible amount of disinformation, i.e. lies, spread by republicans and democrats and trolls.

The Bush Administration, and Republicans and Democrats in Congress alike, repeat almost daily that they will not defund the troops, with both sides vying for public support with the same bullshit.

It's the biggest load of crap there is.

The Democratic Leadership apparently is afraid of not funding the Iraq occupation either because they are afraid of being attacked by Bush and the GOP for not funding the troops, or because they want to continue the occupation.

They know it is a lie when Bush says it.

Yet they turn right around and tell people (repeating the lie) that advocating not funding the occupation is not funding the troops.

Emergency supplemental funding for a war or for an occupation is not for the troops. It never has been for the troops. It will never be for the troops.

NOT passing emergency supplemental funding does not hurt the troops. It never has hurt the troops. It will never hurt the troops.

Not passing emergency supplemental funding is simply NOT FUNDING the occupation. That is all it is.

Defunding The Iraq War Is Supporting The Troops:

You Can't Hurt a Troop By Defunding a War:

The funding is not for the troops.

When President George Bush claims that the money is for the troops, he is quite simply lying. The funding is not for the troops.

When Senator Barack Obama or Senator Carl Levin claims to want to pressure Bush to end the war, while at the same time promising to fund the war forever in the name of funding the troops, we are being told something that cannot possibly make any sense. The funding is not for the troops. It is for the war. You can't end the war while providing it. You can't hurt a troop by denying it.

When the Democrats or anyone else claim that the money is for the troops, they, just like George Bush, are quite simply lying. The funding is not for the troops.

The TROOPS are funded by regular appropriations. DOD budget. Emergency supplemental funding has nothing to do with "funding the troops".

It does buy, among other things such as logistical support from Halliburton, Parsons, and DynCorp, fuel, in theater equipment maintenance, bullets, cluster bombs, etc., etc., IOW all the "stuff" needed to continue the occupation. The troops use that "stuff" in the continuance of that occupation, and to defend themselves and stay alive (as best they can) while continuing that occupation. Defunding the occupation of Iraq and withdrawing or redeploying the troops does not hurt the troops. It helps them to stay alive.

Emergency supplemental funding is only for the occupation. When Bush says differently, or when the Democratic Leadership says differently, or when a troll here says differently.... it is a lie.

The "war" has been funded with emergency supplemental funding for years. There is plenty of money for withdrawing in regular budget without the emergency supplemental the Democrats recently passed.

War And Occupation Funding: More Cooking The Books By Bush And Pentagon?

"Since 9/11, Congress has passed at least one emergency bill to cover war costs, making supplemental spending the method of choice for the majority of funding for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror," Alexander added. "Of the $510 billion spent thus far, $331.8 billion (about 65 percent) has come from supplemental spending legislation. If the so-called "bridge fund" included in the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill is included, the total rises to $401.8 billion. That means nearly 80 percent of all funding for these wars was the result of emergency and supplemental spending, not regular budgetary means."

The total funds requested by the Defense Department for emergency spending is $163.4 billion, including $70 billion already provided as part of DOD's regular fiscal year appropriations plus a new supplemental request of $93.4 billion.

"If enacted, DOD's funding would increase by 40 percent above the previous year and would more than double from the FY2004 funding level," the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report says.

As Glenn Greenwald noted on May 26 in Salon:

In Newsweek, Jonathan Alter has a long article defending -- as lamentably necessary -- the decision of the Democrats to fund the Iraq war without any limitations.
...
Both of the premises which Alter sets forth here are correct: (a) de-funding does not even arguably constitute "endangerment or abandonment of the troops," but (b) "Americans have been convinced that it does." And therein one finds what is the most extraordinary and telling fact of our political landscape. Namely, our Iraq war policy was just determined, in large part if not principally, by a complete myth: that de-funding proposals constitute an abandonment or, more ludicrously still, "endangerment" of the troops.

Emergency Supplementals, besides the things I mentioned above, also pay for:

a U.S. force in Iraq that is effectively double the size that most people are aware of, and a system where national duty is outbid by profits:

Many Americans are under the impression that the US currently has about 145,000 active duty troops on the ground in Iraq. What is seldom mentioned is the fact that there are at least 126,000 private personnel deployed alongside the official armed forces. These private forces effectively double the size of the occupation force, largely without the knowledge of the US taxpayers that foot the bill.

Working for U.S. companies like Blackwater, Triple Canopy and DynCorp and companies from other countries, according to Scahill's investigations:

Some contractors make in a month what many active-duty soldiers make in a year. Indeed, there are private contractors in Iraq making more money than the Secretary of Defense and more than the commanding generals.

I repeat, Emergency Supplemental Funding is not for the troops. It is only for the occupation. When Bush says differently, or when the Democratic Leadership says differently, or when a troll here says differently.... it is a lie.

The "war" has been funded with emergency supplemental funding for years. There is plenty of money for withdrawing in regular budget without the emergency supplemental the Democrats just passed.

It's time for the Democrats in Congress to stop lying and start being honest with the public.

The lies are killing the sons and daughters of that public.

Rep. David Obey - last year (Library of Congress - Thomas 2006):

I. THE TRUE COST OF THE WAR

Congress appropriates funding for the Iraq war much like the Administration prosecutes it: recklessly, and without being honest with the American people.

Once again, funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars--$50 billion in this case--are provided as an `emergency supplemental' in this bill. All told, Congress will have provided the Defense Department with $450 billion of emergency funding for this war.

To treat funding for the Iraq war as an unexpected emergency is a perversion of the term. By way of comparison, the Vietnam War required only a single supplemental, after which it was financed through the regular budget process.

While not an emergency, this funding is provided as such because it is politically expedient. It allows the Administration and the Congress to avoid the budgetary tradeoffs and to hide the full cost of the war. It is part of the Administration's strategy of providing the facts about Iraq on the installment plan.

In April of 2003, the President signed the first Iraq supplemental providing $62.6 billion for the Defense Department. This was after the President's budget director told the New York Times that the war would cost between $50 and $60 billion.

In November of 2003, when the President signed a second supplemental providing $64.9 billion for the Defense Department, the White House termed it a `one-time, wartime supplemental.' Nine months later Congress provided $25 billion of additional emergency funding.

In May of 2005, the President signed a third supplemental providing $75.7 billion for the Defense Department and told us that democracy was taking root in Iraq. Seven months later, as civil war rocked Iraq, Congress provided an additional $50 billion of emergency funding.

This week, Congress passed another $65.8 billion supplemental. The same day, in a surprise visit to Iraq, the President once again linked the Iraq war and the attacks of September 11th--an assertion that is patently false and that only he and the Vice President appear to still believe.

In this bill, the House will approve another $50 billion more in emergency funding for Iraq to cover operations through the spring of 2007. As was the case with previous Iraq supplementals, these costs will be tacked on to this President's greatest legacy--a massive $300 billion plus deficit. The result is that future generations will be forced to pay the financial costs of the President's failed Iraq policy.

For several years, I have asked the Administration to come forward with 5-year estimates of the war costs so that Congress could get a better sense of how to balance the books. The FY 2005 Defense Appropriations Conference Report included a general provision requiring the Administration to do just that. No such report was ever provided. The President chose to waive the requirement by certifying in writing that providing these cost estimates would harm national security.

The only harm that would come from providing estimates of future war costs would be to the political fortunes of those who insist on funding this war through emergency supplementals instead of being honest with the public about the war's real cost. More than three years into this war it is clear that honesty is too much to expect from this Administration.

Boston Globe, September 2006
Congressional Analysis: Cost of Iraq war nearly $2b a week:

The United States maintains it is not building permanent military bases in Iraq or Afghanistan, where the local population distrusts America's long-term intentions.

But for the first time, a major factor in the growth of war spending is the result of a dramatic rise in ``investment costs," or spending needed to sustain a long-term deployment of American troops in the two countries, the report said. These include the additional purchases of protective equipment for troops, such as armored Humvees, radios, and night-vision equipment; new tanks and other equipment to replace battered gear from Army and Marine Corps units that have been deployed numerous times in recent years; and growing repair bills for damaged equipment, what the military calls ``reset" costs.

So the only way the funding can be said to be "for the troops" is if the intention is to keep them in Iraq for many years.

The Pentagon, which had previously made public its own estimate of operating costs, has not released up-to-date war costs.

The Congressional Research Service report estimates that after Congress approves two pending bills, the total war costs since Sept. 11, 2001, will reach about $509 billion. Of that, $379 billion will cover the cost of operations in Iraq, $97 billion will be the price tag for Afghanistan operations, and $26 billion will have gone to beefed-up security at US military bases around the world.
...
Another major war cost is for infrastructure -- bases, landing strips, repair shops -- for the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. These "operations and maintenance" costs remained steady at about $40 billion per year in 2003, 2004, and 2005, but have spiked to more than $60 billion this year.

Those factors alone, however, are "not enough to explain" the spiraling increase in operating costs, according to the report.

"You would expect [operating costs] to level off if you have the same level of people," said the report's principal author, Amy Belasco, a national defense specialist at the Congressional Research Service. "You shouldn't have as much cost to fix buildings that were presumably repaired when you got there. It's a bit mysterious."

The Pentagon has not provided Congress with a detailed accounting of all the war funds, making it impossible to conduct a full, independent estimate of how much Americans are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan -- or to predict what future costs might be.

The Institute for Policy Analysis provides a detailed breakdown of the Human Costs... Security Costs... Economic Costs... and Social Costs of the Iraq occupation.

I couldn't do a cost/benefit analysis. I couldn't find any 'benefit'.

[Cross-posted at Edgeing and at DKos]

Go vote in the poll at DKos.

There's more: "Crossposted from "Edging" - Defunding Iraq: Misperceptions, Disinformation And Lies" >>

Pardon me...

But I have a small favor to ask...

Our good friend (he links us!) and frequent commenter here, Edger, is conducting a poll on a diary over at Kos, and like so many things at Kos, it got buried too fast. It's one simple question at the end of a really good, well written and thorough post. So please, click here and take his poll. Thank you. --BG

There's more: "Pardon me..." >>

So where do we go from here?

That is the question.

The bill is passed, it will be signed and the war is funded through September.

I am disappointed that the Democrats caved – but for some reason, I keep flashing back to my youth and a saying I first heard all those years ago in Britain…The game isn’t worth the candle.

You have probably never heard that adage, but it basically means “No thanks, I’ll pass on the Pyrrhic victory.” I had not thought of that expression for years, but for some reason, that was the first place my mind went when I saw that the Senate had passed the war funding resolution.

Did the Democrats capitulate; or are they trying to set up the chess board, knowing a checkers man is on the other side? I honestly don’t know what they were thinking. But I can see a couple of plausible reasons for things playing out the way they did.

First of all, we need to remember the hard-fought supplemental should not have even been necessary. That this battle even had to be waged was a final, petulant “fuck you” from the 109^th congress that did not pass a budget before their fired asses schlepped out of the Capitol for the last time until their triumphant return as lobbyists.

If they had done their job, this drama would never have played out, and that was a Republican, rubber-stamp congress. They did not do the job we paid them to do, so this whole sorry spectacle is a legacy of failed Republican leadership.

Remember that first and foremost, and remind those who forget – or purposely try to dishonestly gloss over that part.

Now let’s get realistic and take stock. The funding resolution that just passed over our objections covers the near-term. It funds the war through September. We are already planning our Memorial Weekend barbecues. Does anyone reading this honestly think that there is not sufficient money in the pipeline already to muddle through the next 16 weeks? (If so, email me about this bridge I’m trying to unload.)

Sixteen weeks is the blink of an eye – but September is magic for a few reasons – not the least of which is that it is also the end of the fiscal year. That, and sixteen weeks is not a hell of a long time to spend debating the funding for the next entire year.

In September, before the next years funding is finalized, General Petraeus will be back before the congress, reporting on the status of the situation on the ground in Iraq.

Does anyone believe that it is going to get better between now and then? Of course not. Between now and then, the number of American dead is going to cross the 4000 mark. The Congress he will appeal to at that time will have a burr under their collective saddle called an angry electorate. And the more dead they bury the angrier they are going to be. September is only 12 weeks from now on the chronological calendar, but on the electoral calendar, September is light years away from now. By then, even entrenched incumbents will be campaigning…

Please don’t misread that as I am willing to use troops as political pawns. I have personally loved too dearly too many of them to ever go down that path – but on that note, Carl von Clausewitz was indisputably right – war is policy by other means. And frankly, in the final analysis of the cold equation – every American in uniform in the volunteer military knows that to be true. It is accepted. We all have our reasons for signing up and signing on. Some are economic, some are idealistic, some are nebulous. But it all clears up pretty quickly once you are in, or that troop is out before the end of boot camp.

I am not absolving anyone of anything, I am just assessing the knowns, and I can see a scenario or two where the Democrats might have looked at the calendar and decided that the game just wasn’t worth the candle.

There's more: "So where do we go from here?" >>

Democrats: Quivering in fear of “Big Bad Bush”

Congressional Democrats are pushing an Iraq funding bill with no timetable teeth because they’re afraid of Big Bad Bush huffing and puffing:

Democrats said they did not relish the prospect of leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break — the second recess since the financing fight began — and leaving themselves vulnerable to White House attacks that they were again on vacation while the troops were wanting. That criticism seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left by bowing to Mr. Bush.

Ooh, ooh, quiver in fear. Geez, if you haven’t realized now that, especially against this administration, the best defense is a good offense, you probably NEVER will.

Meanwhile, we have bullshit coming from the mouthpiece of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi:

But scores of other Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, say they have no intention of voting for the more than $100 billion sought by the White House for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan because Mr. Bush refused to accede to timelines, readiness standards and other conditions. They have said repeatedly since taking control in January that they will not turn over more money for the war without some movement toward a withdrawal.

In allowing the war money measure to reach the floor with indifferent backing from her own party, Ms. Pelosi is breaking one of the cardinal rules of her predecessor, J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, whose mantra was to legislate with the majority of the majority party.

“She is showing she is the speaker of the whole House,” said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi. “Even though she does not personally support it, she said the money will go to the troops and she is following through on that.”

No, Mr. Daly, she’s showing how much of a squish she is. If she doesn’t get a Democratic primary opponent in 2008, I will personally send money to a Green opponent in the general election, if I can.

Meanwhile, right now, the bottom-line question in the other chamber is if any Senate Democrat, Feingold if not Dodd, will stand up on the floor and do an old-fashioned filibuster, as Keith Olbermann has already starting clamoring for.

Cross-posted atSocraticGadfly.

There's more: "Democrats: Quivering in fear of “Big Bad Bush”" >>

“Support the troops” a no-win proposition

Over at Washington Monthly, there’s a package of stories from recent war veterans on how Democratic presidential candidates might get their vote.

There’s also an in-depth analysis by Spencer Ackerman as to why those candidates shouldn’t be looking to the troops to guide their decisions, ultimately.

Spencer Ackerman's article is more important than any of the soldiers' stories in the package. He explains why “support the troops” short of “bring ’em home” is a no-win, for one thing:

Democrats have made the decision — rightly, I think — that withdrawing from Iraq is the least bad of many bad options. But they shouldn’t kid themselves into thinking that a majority of the troops doing the fighting agree with them. For soldiers like Lieutenant Wellman, this will be hard to accept. As he told me of war doubters back home, “I don’t want them to just support the troops. I want them to support the mission.”

Ackerman indicates from enlisteds through noncoms into the corps of officers, a clear majority of boots on the ground still feel this way.

He touches on some of the reasons, which I’ll go into more.

First, too many soldiers have, to put it bluntly, some degree of ADDICTION to fighting after multiple tours in Iraq. (Note Ackerman quoting a soldier about having a “hard-on” about the possibility of killing alleged terrorists.

And yes, I do believe it’s a psychological addiction. In many cases, there’s at least the beginnings of post-traumatic stress disorder behind the development.

Plus, as Ackerman also notes, and as I agree, the “boots on the ground” have a narrow, sector-localized understanding of what is “successful.” Throw in the bar of “success” continually being lowered, and to take the addiction metaphor further, Democrats risk becoming “enablers.”

The idea of “support the troops” in any way short of supporting getting them home ASAP, because “the troops” still want to fight, is a losing proposition.

Democrats, already labeled as “out of touch with the military,” may be uncomfortable with what would appear to be a patronizing position, that “the troops don’t always know best.” But, that’s the bottom line. The key, though, as Ackerman notes, is to support the troops psychologically when they get back to America. Beyond adequate funding of Veterans Administration psychological treatment, this includes stressing that they never failed in their mission, but that the mission itself was a failure of design.

Cross-posted at SocraticGadfly.

There's more: "“Support the troops” a no-win proposition" >>

Novak: This “surrender” is it for Congressional Dems on Iraq

And, forget about next year, he says:

President Bush has won a rare showdown victory over Congress simply because Democrats felt they could not afford the risk of letting a war in progress run out of money. The Democrats' problem is that this demonstrates conclusively that they are all talk on the Iraq War — a fact that their base will quickly realize. There is no way for Congress to end the war short of cutting off funds, and to cut off funds without the consent of the President is to invite a repeat of exactly the same showdown the Democrats have now already lost.

Agreed that the bottom line is another showdown. So, fine, let’s have it. More than once, if necessary.

Novak goes on to say that if Democrats won’t do more this year, they certainly won’t next year:

The bottom line is that Democrats have passed on their best chance to end the Iraq War. If they are not willing to take a risk here in a non-election year in order to force Bush to end the war, then they certainly do not have what it takes to cut off war funds in the coming presidential election year.

I totally agree. We need real action, not noise-making and posturing. However, I’m not optimistic about what we will actually get, versus what we need.

Cross-posted at SocraticGadfly.

There's more: "Novak: This “surrender” is it for Congressional Dems on Iraq" >>

When Does the Filibuster Start?

David Sirota asks Anyone Know When the Senate Filibuster Starts? WHERE'S THE BEEF? After all Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd are strongly denouncing the Harry Reid Surrender Bill (Er the War Funding Supplemental.) Surely the two of them could tag team an old Mr. Smith goes to Washington style filibuster to at least slow things down a bit. This morning Jerome Armstrong over at MyDD speculates that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will vote against the Harry Reid Surrender Bill. That makes 4 Senators to tag team a filibuster. I suspect that eventually all the Democratic Senators running for President will vote no on the Harry Reid Surrender Bill. That should be sufficient number of Senators to at least put up a fight. Jesus, if Senator Kyl could quietly stop the repeal of the Patriot Act provision at the center of the US Attorney firing scandal for months, then surly a bunch of big name senators wanting our votes and money to help them in their runs for President should be able to at least grab some headlines.

Any bets that they do it? With the exception of Russ Feingold, whose position is principled, the rest will moan and groan and vote a very polite and public "no" in hopes of keeping the support of the majority of folks who are fed up with the war, but in the end they won't do anything that might succeed or even call shame on their colleagues. Surrender monkeys are like that.

Oh you might want to follow that Sirota link. He has found and posted the old "Where's the Beef" commercial. A classic.

UPDATE: Keith Olbermann's Special Comment says it all. When does the filibuster start?

There's more: "When Does the Filibuster Start?" >>

Reid Surrenders

Doug Mills/The New York Times

“Congressional Democrats relented today on their insistence that a war spending measure sought by President Bush also set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq. The decision to back down, described by senior lawmakers and aides, was a wrenching reversal for some Democrats, who saw their election triumph as a call to force an end to the war.”

“We don’t have a veto-proof Congress,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader.

Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the House Democratic majority leader, said the new bill was still being assembled, but he acknowledged the political reality facing Democrats. “The president has made it very clear that he is not going to sign timelines,” said Mr. Hoyer. “We can’t pass timelines over his veto.”

So what? The American people want the troops home. NOW. The American people want timelines. NOW. Let aWol keep vetoing the bill. It's HIS FRICKING WAR! Let him OWN IT!!! If aWol refuses to accept the will of the American people, you know...the people he and Congress WORK FOR...then aWol is not supporting the troops. Democrats should continue to pass appropriation bills with timelines. Over and over and over, if necessary. aWol would take the political heat, not Democrats. Why is that so difficult to understand?

At least Russ Feingold contines to get it:

“Under the President’s Iraq policies, our military has been over-burdened, our national security has been jeopardized, and thousands of Americans have been killed or injured. Despite these realities, and the support of a majority of Americans for ending the President’s open-ended mission in Iraq, congressional leaders now propose a supplemental appropriations bill that does nothing to end this disastrous war. I cannot support a bill that contains nothing more than toothless benchmarks and that allows the President to continue what may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation’s history. There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action. Congress should have stood strong, acknowledged the will of the American people, and insisted on a bill requiring a real change of course in Iraq.”

Emphasis mine. And Paul Krugman states the case more eloquently than I--"Confronting Mr. Bush on Iraq has become a patriotic duty":

Since the beginning, the administration has refused to put funding for the war in its regular budgets. Instead, it keeps saying, in effect: “Whoops! Whaddya know, we’re running out of money. Give us another $87 billion.” ...

What I haven’t seen sufficiently emphasized, however, is the disdain this practice shows for the welfare of the troops, whom the administration puts in harm’s way without first ensuring that they’ll have the necessary resources.

As long as a G.O.P.-controlled Congress could be counted on to rubber-stamp the administration’s requests, you could say that this wasn’t a real problem, ... just part of its usual reliance on fiscal smoke and mirrors. But this time Mr. Bush decided to surge additional troops into Iraq after an election in which the public overwhelmingly rejected his war — and then dared Congress to deny him the necessary funds. As I said, it’s an act of hostage-taking.

Actually, it’s even worse than that. According to reports, the final version of the funding bill ... won’t even set a hard deadline for withdrawal..., only an “advisory,” nonbinding date. Yet Mr. Bush plans to veto the bill all the same — and will then accuse Congress of failing to support the troops.

The whole situation brings to mind what Abraham Lincoln said ... in 1860, about secessionists who blamed the critics of slavery for the looming civil war: “A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, ‘Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!’ ”

So how should Congress respond to Mr. Bush’s threats? ... Confronting Mr. Bush on Iraq has become a patriotic duty.

Democrats won control of both Houses of Congress with a mandate to change things. The Republican-controlled Congress did nothing against aWol's wishes. The Dems should make the changes. It's their patriotic duty.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., co-founder of the liberal Out of Iraq Caucus, said she will vote against the new measure and predicted that many of colleagues will join her.

"Every time we negotiate, it (the bill) becomes weaker," said Woolsey, D-Calif. "This is a Republican bill, so it better be Republican votes that pass it."

Woolsey's right, no one should vote for this thing. It's a Republican bill, let them pass it.

I'm with Blue Girl.

If this passes the House, there will be an electoral bloodbath in November of 2008, and the carcasses of Republican and Democrat alike will litter the landscape.

Damn straight.

There's more: "Reid Surrenders" >>

An Open Letter to Congressman Cleaver (and every sitting congresscritter, for that fact)

Congressman Cleaver;

I know I am a pain-in-the-ass constituent. I admit that freely - wear it as a badge of honor, in fact.

I am also fed up with this feckless president that has brought our country low. I simply will not abide a congress that enables him. He needs to be impeached, not placated for fucks sake.

I am just a humble-blogger – but I am getting less humble about it every day.

The hell with the press – they are all bought and paid for. We are actually watching you, We are actually reading the policy papers and We are actually writing about your records from the public record. We are unconcerned with “access” because we don’t have any; and for the record - veracity doesn't need a bio (or a byline for that fact).

I issue a friendly warning now – any Representative that backs this apostasy of a funding bill with no timelines – especially in light of the Iraqi parliament backing withdrawal plans with timelines – will face the wrath of the blogs. And any Representative that does not take that seriously is in for a rude awakening.

If this passes the House, there will be an electoral bloodbath in November of 2008, and the carcasses of Republican and Democrat alike will litter the landscape. The way the system is gamed, we are a two-party system, and only a perfect storm of feckless perfidy will change that.

Say hello to Unity 08 and the Progressives.

Check the calendar. It’s storm season.

[Cross-posted from Blue Girl, Red State & The Out of Iraq Bloggers Caucus]

There's more: "An Open Letter to Congressman Cleaver (and every sitting congresscritter, for that fact)" >>

Are The Democrats Going To Cave To The Commander Guy Or Not?

On my way to the office this morning, I heard a story on NPR that Democrats were about to give the President a no strings Iraq war funding bill. TPM and The New York Times are strongly denying the story. Apparently the Democratic leadership was ready to throw in the towel, but decided to pull back.

OK, Nancy, and all the rest of you fair weather Democrats in the Democratic leadership, here is the deal. We, the people, elected you guys in November, 2006, to stand up to the commander guy and get our asses out of Iraq. If you surrender to Bush on the war you can probably kiss the 60% to 70% of your support goodbye. Triangulate that.

John Edwards is right, send the President the same bill over and over again until he signs it. Right now he is making you look like fools. You hear us Nancy Pelosi?

There's more: "Are The Democrats Going To Cave To The Commander Guy Or Not?" >>

Safe Food? Safe Working Environments? That's Crazy Talk!

How ironic the Bush administration’s dual-sided approach to security is: you have a White house, on one hand, hell-bent on illegally wiretapping citizens' phone lines and throwing others into prison in the name of "national security," while, on the other hand, adopting an extremely lax approach to enforcing worker and food security standards.

This week another meat company is recalling 129,000 pounds of beef products in 15 states (including Missouri) because of yet another possible E. coli contamination. And U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) has introduced the Food Safety Act of 2007:

Spurred by deadly outbreaks of E. coli and other food-borne pathogens, a group of U.S. lawmakers is pushing to put all food safety oversight under a single federal agency.

[snip]

Currently, 12 federal agencies and 35 laws govern food safety, often with overlapping jurisdictions and different priorities.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration play the biggest roles in making sure the food Americans eat is safe. The USDA oversees meat and poultry, while the FDA is responsible for eggs and produce. (Interactive: How science can help keep our food safe )

The lines are not always clear-cut. For example, cheese pizzas fall under the FDA, while pepperoni pizzas fall under the Department of Agriculture.

In January, the Government Accountability Office added federal oversight of food safety to its list of "high risk" programs in need of "broad-based transformation." The GAO urged Congress to consider "a fundamental re-examination of the system ... before public health and safety is compromised."

Critics point to the FDA, in particular, as needing reform. The FDA oversees 80 percent of the food supply but receives only 20 percent of the funding.

"I call it 'Katrina on your plate.' You've got an agency, the FDA, that's understaffed, under-funded, without leadership, and it's not doing its job. And it's causing a real life suffering and death for people," said Andrew Kimbrell, director of the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit watchdog group in Washington.

Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have introduced a companion bill in the Senate. And it's about time.

Only one major safety rule has been enacted by OSHA since George W. Bush took office, and only after it was ordered by a federal court. The FDA has inspected only 20,662 food shipments out of the more than 8.9 million delivered to American ports. That's less than one percent inspected. Since 200 the number of food shipments has more than doubled.

This critical negligence is the result of the Bush administration's belief that new safety standards and regulations should be limited while old ones be rolled back to prevent the imposition of additional, cumbersome costs on businesses. Slash funds from essential oversight programs in order to pay for tax breaks for the rich.

While OSHA officials point to figures showing declines in both fatality and injury rates since 2001, critics dispute the numbers. Labor and health experts say those numbers severely undercount the actual numbers because the Bush administration has decreased the categories of recognized injuries, and because the majority of the most dangerous jobs are now done by undocumented immigrants.

Many have warned of the distinct possibility of terrorists successfully smuggling biological or chemical weapons in to the U.S. through the laxly inspected ports. But the increasing outbreaks of illnesses present a serious health crisis. And it is not beyond the realm of possibility that terrorists could take advantage of lax food inspection to attack the U.S.

"Security president?" Hardly.

[cross-posted at Lost Chord]

There's more: "Safe Food? Safe Working Environments? That's Crazy Talk!" >>

It's Mother's Day - let's play the analogy game...

It’s Mother’s Day, so I’ll work in a gratuitous anecdote about childrearing. I raised three, and my husband’s commitment to the USAF meant that a great deal of that time I was essentially a single parent.

I had neither the time nor the inclination to brook foolishness. When they held their breath, I let them. The middle one actually passed out once – and promptly started breathing again. Every time the Useless Tool™ threatens a veto of the funding supplemental, I think about my daughter trying to throw a hissy-fit at the queen of the fit-throwers, and ending up passed out in the kitchen and getting stepped over as I continued to make dinner.

There is another oldie-but-goodie from my childrearing days: Whenever a kid was having a terrible, horrible, no-good, very-bad day, stomping around with a little black rain cloud overhead and generally being a pain, I would pull that kid aside and remind them that if you have a problem with everyone, and everyone has a problem with you, the chances are overwhelming that you (being the only common denominator) are the problem. (That one really rings true when we are talking about the Resident, doesn’t it?)

Today’s Washington Post has a comprehensive article on the status of the interactions between the White House and the real Deciders in Congress. This bit, from an unnamed Republican jumped out at me (especially in light of last weeks trip to the Oval by a disgruntled group of GOP congresscritters with a nervous eye cast toward ’08.)

The trouble for the White House is that increasingly, the mistrust may not be not limited to Democrats. As evidenced by a contentious Bush meeting last week with House moderates complaining about Iraq policy, Republican lawmakers are increasingly leery of a president whose war policies many believe are leading the party to ruin in the 2008 elections. The result is that the president finds himself in an uphill struggle not only to win a few domestic victories on his way out of the Oval Office but also to maintain necessary GOP support for continuing the war in Iraq. (emphasis added)

Joshua Bolton, the Resident’s Chief of Staff predictably downplayed the discord. "I could have seen a scenario in which Republicans would be blaming the president for being in the minority status and trying to distance themselves aggressively from the president, and I don't see it happening," he said.

Methinks Mr. Bolton might be spinning it just a tad – (okay, he's spinning it hard enough to make cotton candy.)

From the same article:

But one conservative House Republican with close ties to the leadership said the concerns expressed by the congressmen in the meeting were widely shared across ideologies. "That wasn't the Tuesday Group speaking," he said, referring to an organization of moderate GOP legislators. "No, that's the Republican sentiment."

It isn’t just the RINO’s that are bristling. The reality of November 7 is sinking in to quite a few of our legislators.

And hopefully that awakening is reaching the executive branch as well…

White House officials acknowledge that they are trying to make up for lost time with Democrats and are looking for any angle, however unconventional. When Rep. John P. Murtha Jr. (D-Pa.), among the most prominent and outspoken Democratic war critics, showed up at a recent meeting with national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, Cheney stopped by. The two men had worked closely during the Persian Gulf War, when Cheney was secretary of defense and Murtha was the top House Democrat on defense spending issues. Cheney seemed to want to question Murtha on what the Democrats were planning with the then-upcoming vote on war funding.

"I just told them where I was, what I was going to try to do, how I felt about the war -- that I didn't think we could win it," Murtha said in an interview, adding that he told Cheney that House Democrats would pass a tough spending bill with benchmarks and conditions on the war. "I don't think he believed we were going to pass the legislation."

But pass it they did, and when the Useless Tool™ vetoed it, they came back like there was a Mother in charge and passed a more restrictive bill for funding. (I’ve said it before, and I will say it again – he should have to ask my mother for the money he wants.)

After the Veto, another invitation was extended to congressional leaders for a meeting, and the operative thinking was that they would begin negotiations on the next bill. They assumed wrong, and the Resident was taken aback, left slack-jawed and dumb-founded (although to be fair, that is not much of a stretch.)

But according to several sources familiar with the meeting, Pelosi made it clear that House leaders would not engage in serious negotiations with the White House until after another bill passed and moved to a conference committee with the Senate.

Sounds to me like someone get sent to their room with no dessert and no tv, and now has to think about what they have done.

Too bad that approach is being tried half a freakin’ century too late.

There's more: "It's Mother's Day - let's play the analogy game..." >>

We'll see your veto and raise you additional restrictions

The Democratic Congress saw the Resident’s recent veto of the war funding resolution and raised the bet by passing an even more restrictive package last night; one that only funds the short term and would require the Useless Tool™ to return to Congress and justify further funding in approximately 60 days.

Another veto is promised, but Congress remained steadfast and defiant, passing the legislation 221 to 205.

Now the Senate must pass a place-holder bill and then committees from each chamber will get together and hammer out the final language of the bill that will be presented to the president.

I gotta admit – the Mom in me is getting a thrill in watching the Congress check the chump. When my kids screwed up, they lost something they had or they didn’t get something they wanted. When the first veto was affixed – on Mission Accomplished Day, no less – I said that every future bill should be more and more restrictive.

I said a while back that he should have to ask my mother for the money to fund this cock-up. And while he’s at it, he should just try telling her that it’s gonna be his way or not at all. She would put her wallet away and say “fine.” And the discussion would be over. Continue to quibble and find yourself performing some unpleasant task. (I always suspected she kept one in reserve to make a point.)

What I found really interesting was the separate bill to mandate withdrawal of all combat forces from Iraq that failed.

Democrats mustered 171 votes for far tougher legislation that would all but end U.S. military involvement in Iraq within nine months. The 255 to 171 vote against that measure meant that nowhere close to a majority backed it, but the fact that 169 Democrats and two Republicans voted for it surprised opponents and proponents alike.

"I didn't think I was going to get anywhere near 171 votes," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), the withdrawal bill's chief author. "This is proof that the United States Congress is getting closer to where the American people already are."

The American people are not going to suddenly, at some point over the summer, have an epiphany and rally support for a failed war effort, launched on lies for the vainglorious ego-fluffing of a small, pathetic failed man with Daddy Issues.

That 171 number is like the number of casualties and war dead – it can only go one way.

[Cross-posted from Blue Girl, Red State]

There's more: "We'll see your veto and raise you additional restrictions" >>