Iraq War Funding: The Democrats Capitulate
I have put considerable energy over the last few hours into trying to rationalize the decision of congressional Democrats to call a truce in the Iraq war funding battle as something other than rank capitulation.
Smart politics, perhaps.
The recognition that the compromise with the White House – which shifts the focus from a troop withdrawal deadline to imposing new conditions on the Iraqi government — doesn’t really change much since that government can’t even wipe its own ass.
Just another step in a long and involved political dance.
But no amount of rationalizing can rinse the bad taste from my mouth.
The Democrats were given an unambiguous mandate in the mid-term elections to bring the troops home. Even though they are short of a veto-proof majority, an increasing number of Republicans were jumping ship to join them in agreeing to legislation with a troop withdrawal timeline.
But in the end, Democrats did not bow to the inevitable, as their spin doctors are depicting the decision. Nothing in this topsy turvy war is inevitable except for more unnecessary death and destruction and the failure of the Bush war policy.
No, in the end the Democrats capitulated. And lied to the American people just like the White House has lied.
65 Responses to “Iraq War Funding: The Democrats Capitulate”
I think Michael Stickings has got it right on another post here at TMV.
Sorwell,
I know I’m in the minority, but I’d like to see a constitutional confrontation over this subject. The system has failed us spectacularly. We’ve ended up visiting tremendous horror on the Iraqi people, we’ve wasted the lives of men and women in our military, and we’ve helped breed more terrorism.
Maybe a constitutional crisis will help us really reform our government so something like this doesn’t happen again.
They didn’t surrender on Social Security privatization.
According to Jerome Armstrong at MYDD, the reason Reid made this deal is that Republicans Hagel and Smith (who’d voted with them on the original bill), wouldn’t continue to vote against the president’s wishes. That left Reid with 48 votes, not enough even to send a bill forward.
In other words, the Democrats have pushed for accountability and the Republicans have repeatedly voted to protect George Bush’s pride. This has been an incredible disservice to the country and to the president himself – since it’s allowed him to make mistake after mistake without any intervention. Had they insisted that he formulate a workable plan for securing Iraq, especially in the early days of the occupation, we might not be in this mess.
Chris,
You are a tool. Military voters “indoctrinated” and “ignorant.” What a predictable response from a moronic leftist such as yourself. You obviously know nothing about the military or military culture to make such false and disingenuous generalizations. And you obviously don’t know about the budgeting process either:
Congress authorizes and allocates funds, not the executive. If Congress refuses to fund a war that it still authorizes via the AUMF then Congress bears the responsibility for the consequences of that act, and people in the military will hold Congress accountable with their votes, regardless of party. Not even the Democrats are stupid enough to try that, even if they so desired.
So you want to create a Constitutional crisis where none exists? Why? Constitutional powers are intact and working fine, Bush is not a “dictator” and he doesn’t have infinite power to do what he wants.
Chris–
I know a lot of people who feel that way. And it may come to that.
If you care, I think you’re absolutely correct when you write:
“We’ve ended up visiting tremendous horror on the Iraqi people, we’ve wasted the lives of men and women in our military, and we’ve helped breed more terrorism.”
I’m not so sure you’re right when you say the system has failed. The system is meant to move slowly. It’s meant to respect the will of the voters as expressed in elections. George W. Bush is the duly elected President of the United States. Elections are, as somebody once said, the accountability moment.
I hope the lesson people will draw from this experience that elections have serious consequences. One thing the Democrats have done is get everybody in Congress to place their votes on the record, so we’ll know how to vote when the next accountabilty moment arrives.
I know I can’t wait to vote.
mikeF,
the Democrats actually did surrender on Social Security. they decided to push all of the problems off on someone else in the future instead of dealing with them today. Instead of trying to deal with the problem, they surrendered to the established special interested.
Sorry for the thread hijack.
Entropy,
I should have made it clearer that I was basing my judgement on your generalization. You generalized that the military communnity would ignore the fact that the President and his party have done more to hurt them than the Democrats possibly could by not funding the war.
If *your* generalization is correct, then the military community is indeed ignorant and indoctrinated.
superdestroyer,
Social Security is not in any immediate danger. This country was able to support the baby boomers when they were babies and had no money to house, feed or clothe themselves. It’s insane to think that there isn’t enough resources to do the same for them now that they are older, and more self-sufficient. Especially when you consider the overall increased population.
Chris,
Not doing anything different about Social Security now, just means talk increases in the future since no politicians will ever push for benefit cuts. When those baby boomers were babies, their parents paid 1% in Social security taxes. They currently pay 7%. Their children and grandchildren will eventually pay 10% or more. Add in millions of new immigrants and the taxes just keep going up.
Chris,
It would not be a generalization, it would be a fact. If Congress cut off funds and that negatively affect the lives and livelihood of those serving, then those in Congress who supported it would be held responsible in the voting booth by those in uniform , regardless of Party. That is not a generalization, that is a fact.
Also understand there are strict prohibitions on criticism of the President by those in uniform, but that should not be interpreted to mean that Bush is popular with the military or that the average service person agrees with particular decisions and policies.
Entropy -
I warned you back in “The Iranian timeline in Iraq” thread.
I warned you! But did you listen to me? Oh, no, you knew it all, didn’t you? Oh, it’s just a harmless little bunny, isn’t it?
Hi AR.
From Chris Floyd:
If Bush cared about the Social Security mess, he could have used the surplus he inherited to fix it. He came up with a privatization plan which most Democrats see as dismantling the New Deal- that’s why it was blocked. He could have come up with an alternative- they could have also, but the real problem is that their ideologies are at the two extremes. They are too far apart on most issues to work together.
Yes you did, but sometimes I just can’t help myself.
Awww, what a cute, innocently little bunny. Here, let me give you a hug…