Bush & Dems: A Tale of Two Mandates
You have to go all the way back to Richard Nixon’s infamous 1973 “I am not a crook†speech to find a presidential address that is being made under circumstances so incredible as those when George Bush addresses the nation tonight.
Bill Clinton’s 1998 “I did not have sex with that woman” speech was ignominious, but hardly comparable.
Nixon turned a third-rate burglary at the Democratic National Committee headquarters into a constitutional crisis that would lead to his resignation, while Bush has visited a catastrophe on a third-rate dictatorship – and America – that makes the tumultuous events of the Watergate era seem quaint.
Just as few people believed Nixon when he swore his innocence, few people will believe Bush.
While the president will not be standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner, and although in six subsequent “major” speeches on the Iraq war over the last four years he has repeatedly shifted the rationales for the invasion and occupation as one after the other has been discredited, he will yet again declare that success is at hand although the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary.
While reaction to this latest speech will be muted at home, there will be belly laughs in Moscow and Beijing, as well as in the terrorist enclaves of tribal Pakistan — and more tears shed by the families of the nearly 4,000 men and women at arms who have died in the war.
There has been a modest spike in Bush’s approval ratings because of positive publicity about the surge strategy, as opposed to quantifiable results from it. But with only a tiny minority of Americans telling pollsters that they believe Bush is capable of administering the war and barely a majority supporting General Petraeus, there are very few minds to be changed.
The speech, as they always are, will be devoid of calls for sacrifice at home and absent of candor.
There will be no direct reference to the elephant in the room — an inept and corrupt Baghdad government that has failed to meet every benchmark of consequence set by its White House puppeteers, including a U.S.-crafted law governing the division of Iraq’s vast oil riches that now appears dead after negotiations collapsed.
Beyond more bloodshed, a perverse consequence of the president’s open-ended extension of the surge is that it sends a clear message to the Al Maliki regime that the pressure to work toward national reconciliation — which is necessary if military gains are to be sustained — is off. Its American helpmates, who are busily arming both sides in the civil war, won’t not be leaving anytime soon.
What is being billed as an address to a war-weary nation in reality will be an appeal to congressional Democrats to not get in the way of a blank-check commitment to a war that will last well into the next (probably Democratic administration) if not beyond. That appeal will be paraded in drag, which is to say dressed as a gradual but limited withdrawal that after a year may merely return troop levels to where they were before the surge.
The president need not have bothered to speak.
Despite some sharp questioning of Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker regarding their claims of progress by senators on Tuesday after an utterly lame performance by House members on Monday, Democrats have neither the votes nor the will to face down the president. And like the president, who squandered his post-9/11 mandate, they have squandered theirs.
34 Responses to “Bush & Dems: A Tale of Two Mandates”
war….war never changes.
( quoted from the game Fallout 1,2 &3 )
I, for one, will not watch the speech tonight. I am past the point where I can tolerate Bush’s face or words. It’s simply I no longer trust a word he says. I say this as a moderate who voted for Ford, Bush 41 twice, Bush 43 in 2000 ( I honestly felt Bush was less dangerous than Gore – what a fool I was).
It’s gotten to the point where Bush is like squeaky chalk on a blackboard to me. It’s personal and I think the reason I’m so upset is that Bush and the current crop of Republicans has pushed me further to the left than I feel comfortable.
I’ve always been very conservative on fiscal issues and that made it hard for me to vote for Democrats. However, on social issues I was always more Libertarian. However, now I feel betrayed by our political environment. Republicans have turned into radicals who are out to destroy the America I love. They actually remind me of the SDS of my youthful college days – radicals sowing chaos as a way of forcing radical change.
Thus I am still not a Democrat but I am an Anti-Republican. Call it BDS or anything you like, but the feelings are genuine.
Republicans have turned into radicals who are out to destroy the America I love.
JD I can appreciate your sentiment here but honestly lets look at the track record with BOTH parties in power. Very few if ANY laws get passed that are for or against gays, mehicanos, drug dealers, snivelers, cowards, whiners, nitwits, embiciles or ME.
The fact is that all the screaming, whining and crying comes from the masses and the parties themselves just collect the rewards of the polarization it creates. Both parties TALK about doing something regarding these issues…….BUT NEVER DO…..or at least rarely do.
So that leaves you with the fiscal issues. This country is going bankrupt. The left wants to bankrupt it with social welfare. The right wants to bankrupt it with a war and tax cuts.
Hmm…….even though Im right I think I perfer the lefts plan over the rights. So dont feel alone many people have been pushed left by this president.
But you know what that is why I have always claimed to be a neoconservative. Because in reality they believe in bigger government, more social programs with a stronger military and foreign policy. Its just that this president has poisoned the word “neocon”. I guess now we will have to think up a new term. Sorta like Liberal is an ugly word after years of mistreatment.
‘Democrats have neither the votes nor the will to face down the president. And like the president, who squandered his post-9/11 mandate, they have squandered theirs.’
So, the lesson is- abandon both major parties, and look for real change, for if you vote for the lying R’s or cowardly D’s, you’ve just taken a seat next to them on the bad ship Ignominy!
The Dems have squandered their mandate given to them by the voters to end the war (or at least begin to end the war). The Bush spin is that the situation in Iraq will spiral out of control, though I do not know (does anyone?) if this is the case. Given that large numbers of Iraqis want us out I think we should leave. As soon as possible.
If the situation in Iraq does continue to deteriorate and threaten the region then I think the UN should take action and we should send some troops back in under UN control to maintain stability. I also think other countries would send in troops, too.
If we do this then this is what I see:
A unified, non-politcal plan and control of the region with a mission.
If I felt the Iraqis wanted us there and they were making progress politically and militarily towards goals, then I would support the war in Iraq. However the fact remains that the Iraqi factions need to work thigs out. Bush is just meddling playing each side against the others. In short, the Bush administration’s goals are different than those of the Iraqis. The Iraqis need to be locked in a room and told to work it out amongst themselves. As I mentioned earlier, if Iraq’s situation threatens regional stability then the UN should send in troops as well as the US and other countries.
So yes, Bush can say anything he wants tonight but he’s not out to solve the situation- just save as much face as possible and “win” against the Dems. Boy, what a leader… Bush was elected leader of all Americans, not just a portion. Instead of Bush trying to win his battle against the war critics, he should expend that energy in trying to win the war in Iraq. If I believed Bush and thought there was significant progress in Iraq, I’d support the war. But since Bush is just playing politics with no good plan to win in Iraq then we should bring our troops home. As far as I’m concerned every US casualty in Iraq is a political death since, in the absence of a realistic plan to win the war, the reason we continue to stay in Iraq is so Bush can play politics.
Bush is free to say whatever he likes about progress being made in Iraq but the situation in Iraq has only gotten worse over the years and we continue to loose troops needlessly.
“Democrats have neither the votes nor the will to face down the president”
Strange statement. Without the votes, just how are the Democrats to face down the President?
Yell at him? Challenge him to a duel?
Give him dirty looks?.
Doma:
Speak out and bluntly call the President a liar.
stymie any other things the Prez wants until he is forced to obey the will of the people who elected him.
Indict Gonzo and the many other folks who have lied for Bush in Congressional hearings for Contempt of Congress, etc.
But they won’t, because the D’s want to be able to do the same thing when they win in ’08.
This is why the duopoly must go.
I just had a weird thought………….I’ve been reading here for the last 6 months or so how god-awful dumb Bush is.
But when you see just how “un-clever” the Dems are, I’m wondering who is more lacking in the brains department.
I may be wrong, but I think the time for the Dems to have had the upper hand in leading the way with moderate anti-war legislation was months ago instead of pushing the ill-fated line-in-the-sand bills.
I think now there will be legislation but it will be written by moderate Republicans, not Democrats.
“Speak out and bluntly call the President a liar.”
Oh, yeah, that would have brought the Republicans around to vote with the Dems – NOT.
Bashing the Democrats is the flip side of bashing Bush for everything.
A lot of babies yelling ‘Mommy, I want the moosn and the stars,, and if I don’t get them, I’m going to throw a temper tantrum.”
PS. You need votes to indict anyone.
CO: ‘But when you see just how “un-clever†the Dems are, I’m wondering who is more lacking in the brains department.’
Now test yr smarts. Are you gonna vote for either party?
Doma: It wd have shown will and spine, and won over more of the Am public, As it is, the Ds are do nothings with no balls.
But, apparently, you seem satisfied w the status quo, so keep electing the duopoly.
Thanks.
Well, the Ds are by far the lesser of two evils so far, Which has indeed pushed me farther left. This is not at all to say that I see the D side as partiularly good – sadly. But if its a choice between incompetence, and malicious incompetence, I know how I will vote.
I just wish there where a realistic 3rd, or may I hope, 4th choice though.
Cosmo-
“It wd have shown will and spine, and won over more of the Am public”
I am assuming, then, that you will run for office, get elected and show everyone how it’s fone, not to mention changing the nation.
Thanks.
I’m close to DaveA’s camp. The Democrats have been weak and disappointing- more bark than bite, but their overall intentions allign with my core beliefs. Their ’06 agenda was a moderate one, but the GOP was motivated to block even those modest aims to prove that the 110th could not accomplish any more than the 109th. Pitiful at best.
Only half right. The Democrats may not have the will, but they do have the votes.
They control the bills that get sent to the floor. They have majorities willing to vote for a significant change in course. The problem is that they are obsessed with getting a 60 vote supermajority to avoid a filibuster and a 67 vote supermajority to counter George Bush’s veto.
No issue of this magnitude could ever meet that criteria.
The fact is George Bush want’s his money – and he needs 50 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House. (Democrats also have the ability to filibuster a rubber stamp bill which means the Republicans would need a 60 vote margin).
Bush can’t fight this war without the de-facto support of Democrats. All their protestations notwithstanding, they’ve allowed him to control the issue.
The GOP filibusters and Bush’s veto has stopped any meaningfull legislation the Dems might want to pass. How can you fault the Dems on troops control when they haven’t been in control.
Its just more GOP spin control. Pass the word that the Dems are “in charge” even though all we’ve really got here is that both parties can totally paralyze the other. Then when the democrats can’t do anything we call them ineffective. And while the GOP can’t do anything either, the president sits above it all with the authority to end this and actually do something. And so many idiots fall for it.
That’s good spin, krit, but logic would suggest it was again more of an example of Dems just not being smart.
They indeed got their 2 “moderate” agenda items…….9/11 reforms and min wage.
It was political idiocy though to take the Republicans on over publicized troop withdrawal dates and federal funding for stem cell research without the vetoproof numbers behind them. There were more clever ways of getting legislative momentum built up on Iraq and stem cell but they chose not to be clever.
Prescription drug price controls and limited selection will be aired for the sham it is in the upcoming POTUS campaign with Hillary.
The bulk of the electorate expects cleverness, compromise and statesmanship to get around partisan gridlock. The Dems did not deliver this.
That’s why they run lower approvals than the worst politician on earth.
The Dem’s don’t have to pass legislation. The president does.
Vetos aren’t magic trump cards. Bush can stop all the bills he wants. But until he signs something he has no funding. The Democrats have to bring a bill to the floor and a significant number have to vote for it before it gets to his desk (over 30 Democratic Senators voted for Bush’s supplemental request). This gives the Democrats leverage that they’ve refused to use.
The Republicans have no problem stopping bills they don’t like. They are willing to fight for their bill . The Democrats aren’t.
This became the Democrats war the day they got their majorities. It’s time to stop making excuses for them. The president won’t change course unless he sees a credible challenge to him. And the Democrats won’t challenge him until their constituents demand it.
“Vetos aren’t magic trump cards”
Actually, yea they are if you don’t have the votes to over ride.
“The Republicans have no problem stopping bills they don’t like. They are willing to fight for their bill .”
That has nothing to do with their willingness to fight. Its because its easier to stop bills than get them passed.
“This became the Democrats war the day they got their majorities. ”
Wrong again. This is, was, and always will be George W. Bush’s war. He has made it clear he intends to proceed no matter what the country, the democrats, or even his own party wants. The only option is to cut off funding which would result in an immediate and total withdrawal. A result which even anti-war folks know would be a total disaster and don’t support.
Again. The Democrats don’t need to override Bush’s veto. Bush needs to get a budget passed to continue his war. Without Democratic votes – he doesn’t get it.
And now we have even more proof:
John Warner demands a token 5000 troops home for Christmas.
Bush attacks the “reckless” timetable.
Warner refuses to back down.
Now the president decides to bring 5700 troops home for Christmas.
Bush always backs down when he thinks he’ll lose. The Democrats have never given him a reason to think he’ll lose against them. If they continue to cower at his veto threats they may as well just go home.
Mikef is right.
There has been a concerted Democratic PR campaign to make us believe that they can’t stop the war without Republican votes or the President’s approval. It’s total crap, and more evidence that the Democrats don’t really want to leave Iraq, or don’t care about it more than the 2008 elections. Either way, if there is a hell, they are going straight to it.
As I mentioned, that would result in an immediate and total withdrawal, which no one wants. So, it turns out they do in fact need to have to votes to force Bush into a reasonable end to this war, because he will not go there by himself. I’m sure Bush would love to have his funding cut, because then the real bloodshed of the war can all be foisted off on those who yanked his funding. He will forever be able to say, “we wuda had it if they had just supported the troops.”
Sam,
Why should the Democrats be afraid of one of the most unpopular Presidents in the history of the United States?
He called the Democrats cowards and traitors in 2006, but his party still got their asses kicked. The fear is unfounded.
You’re totally misunderstanding. They aren’t afraid of Bush, they are afraid of the storm of blood that occurs in Iraq if we pull out in a sudden rush. As are most people. We can’t just pull all the troops out in a month or two, we already created one power vacuum over there and look what happened. We create another one we get more of the same.
‘I am assuming, then, that you will run for office, get elected and show everyone how it’s fone, not to mention changing the nation.
Thanks.’
People like you manifestly do not elect honest people who speak common sense. So what wd be the point?
Thanks.
Thanks, Mikef, for the procedural clarity.
Chris: right on. While the R’s make me angry with all their snide evil, the D’s make we want to vomit. They are gutless cowards.
There is a reason that cowardice is reviled more thoroughly than evil, and that’s because evil cannot win w/o cowardice.
Actually, what it would result in is George Bush sitting down with members of Congress and hammering out an agreement over what to do in Iraq. Anybody who thinks George Bush will literally veto every bill that isn’t a rubber stamp hasn’t paid attention to how he operates.
You also seem to be of the impression that our presence is de facto better than our absence. But the current situation is that American forces are subsidizing all sides of a civil war and calling it progress.
Meanwhile major American political figures are considering whether to stage a coup and replace Maliki with a strongman or enforce an American partition plan which would cause the sectarian war to explode. Either of those plans will make things much worse.
“Anybody who thinks George Bush will literally veto every bill that isn’t a rubber stamp hasn’t paid attention to how he operates.”
I think you are the one not paying attn to how Bush operates. What makes you think he will give an inch? They guy has looked America in the face for years and lied and told us he’s going to do as he pleases. He’s never shown an ouch of shame about overreaching his authority nor has he shown any willingness to compromise. He told Congress to go shove their subpoenas, after the ’06 elections he brought us The Surge, he pardons his convicted former staffers, he ignores laws he feels hinder him. What planet have you been on these last few years to think Bush will compromise anything?
A planet where Harriet Miers isn’t a Supreme Court Justice, where Alberto Gonzales is the former AG, where there is no guest worker program, Social Security hasn’t been privatized and the Iraq Study Group was allowed to interrogate the president and Dick Cheney on the screwups that lead to 9/11.
Bush hasn’t been challenged on much, thanks to years of a sycophantic Republican Congress, but where he has he’s always caved.
Casual- Its more than spin. I think the Dems knew that many in the GOP were ready to break with the president on Iraq in November of ’06. Even though some moderates did speak out, they still voted with their party. Disappointing, maybe, but the Dems gambled on the war’s unpopularity putting pressure on Republicans in swing districts or states.
You are all arguing as if there were only tow options: a) stay for ever, and b) stop the funds and pull the troops out precipitously.
The reality is that most people, even most Democrats, want to pull out of Iraq, but they want to do it senisibly, with a minimum of danage to Iraq and to those troops among the last to leave.
The helocopters taking off from VietNam’s roofs is not an inviting scenario to want to repeat.
Any military tacticician will tell you, you can’t take everyone and everything safely out of Iraq in less than around 18 months, and probably 2 years is the safest bet.
So, the cut of funding now scenatio is just dreamland talk, unless you’re ready to have some GIs hitchhike home
Don’t believe everything you hear from politicains campaigning or from advocacy groups promissing you the moon in a shoe box.
.
It’s precisely because most Democrats want to use more sense leaving than what was shown invading, that the President can symie them. They are hog-tied by a dilemma.
It would be second worst mistake to do with Iraq to fall into the President’s trap and do something really rash like cut off funding. leave out troops vulnerable, and create a chaotic exit. I don’t think the Democrat’s could recover from that, and I’m not sure the nation could.
Miers was totally unqualified, she was never going to be confirmed.
Gonzales was not Bush caving. The man perjured himself, violated the constitution on command, and gave some of the most embarassingly transparent cover up testimony ever seen and STILL Bush had his back.
Guest worker and social security never took off because they are simply awful ideas that should have never been pushed in the first place. The fact they even made it on the radar is testimony to Bush’s tenacity in pushing dumb ideas.
And I find your use of “interogate” regarding Bush and Cheney pretty funny. And not just because it wasn’t even under oath.
Actually the budget for fiscal year 2008 (begins Oct.1, 2007) has already been passed and as I recall a supplemental budget for additional funds for the Iraq war was passed late Spring / early Summer. So I don’t believe there are any pending military spending bills which could possibly result in immediate withdrawal. As far as I can tell, Bush’s war is fully funded through the end of the 2008 fiscal year (Sept. 20, 2008).
Right now the Iraqis view us as invaders (we are). And Bush’s fight in Iraq has only brought about more devastation in the 4 1/2 years he’s been there. Bush has one politcal agenda for his own purposes which doesn’t mesh with what the Iraqis need to see happen. So I say we pull out quickly, probably over a period of 9 months (in the past when push comes to shove we’ve been able to move massive amounts of troops quickly) and see what happens in Iraq. We may need to go back in (as part of a true coalition) to help stablize the region. After all if we do pull out now and then go back in the Iraqis can no longer claim that we’re invaders.
So why are we still in Iraq and what are we accomplishing by remaining? Particularly when many Iraqis want us out. We haven’t made progress at all and Bush’s plan is to put the fight off on someone else to deal with once he leaves office. Let’s save American lives and bring our troops home.