Chumps
Congressional leaders from both political parties are giving President Bush a matter of months to prove that the Iraq war effort has turned a corner…
…which it won’t…
with September looking increasingly like a decisive deadline.
…which it won’t be…
In that month, political pressures in Washington will dovetail with the military timeline in Baghdad. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commanding general in Iraq, has said that by then he will have a handle on whether the current troop increase is having any impact on political reconciliation between Iraq’s warring factions.
Translation: he’ll go before Congress and make some shit up about schools being painted, thus necessitating our stay in Iraq for another kajillion Friedmans. We’ve seen this tired act before, peeps. How long can you keep falling for it?
And fiscal 2008, which begins Oct. 1, will almost certainly begin with Congress placing tough new strings on war funding.
Which they won’t. Because, for reasons that elude any sane person, they’re scared of defying a president whose approval ratings are 28%.
“Many of my Republican colleagues have been promised they will get a straight story on the surge by September,” said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.).
Ooop. I’ve just soiled myself laughing. Excuse me while I go clean up.
“I won’t be the only Republican, or one of two Republicans, demanding a change in our disposition of troops in Iraq at that point. That is very clear to me.”
Y’know what’s clear to me? You’re-a-chump, you’re-a-chump, you’re-a-chump-chump-chump, you’re-a-chump, you’re-a-chump, you’re-a-chump-chump-chump, you’re-a-chump, you’re-a-chump, you’re-a-chump-chump-chump, you’re-a-CHUUUUUUUUMP, you’re-a-chump-chump-chump.
“September is the key,” said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds defense. “If we don’t see a light at the end of the tunnel, September is going to be a very bleak month for this administration.”
Please. Once Bush slaps you around with his Freedom Codpiece a few more times, you’ll yelling about Harry Reid giving aid and comfort to Osama bin Saddam again.
The fixation with September is all the more striking because funding bills that cleared the House and Senate this spring were looking well into 2008 to mandate significant changes. The Senate-passed bill set March 2008 as a goal for withdrawing U.S. combat troops, while the House envisioned combat troops being withdrawn by the end of August 2008. In the ensuing weeks, however, news from Iraq has shown little improvement, while public opinion has continued to harden against the war.
And still… still!… they’re afraid to stand up to the SOB. By the gods, what cowards these congressfolk be.
Translation: republicans are waiting until it’s politically expedient to defy the president, so as to deny accusations of blind bushism to the democratic party in 08.
For the life of me, I can’t see how a few more months would make any difference. I mean, on the face of it, how could you see that adding another division of troops would really create a make or break scenario?
The only reason I can possibly see in the end of this endless Friedman cycle is the approach of the ’08 elections. Even then, there’s the 28% of the population that thinks hey, everything’s going swell in Iraq.
I’m afraid a lot more people are going to die.
30+ years of consultant-driven, knee-jerk conventional wisdom (“we can be just like Republicans, only NICER ABOUT IT”) is dying a slow death, but it ain’t going quietly.
This recent episode of Democratic leadership blinking during the staredown is Exhibit A. OTOH, the immediate outcry from the left, and the swift “retreat from the retreat” by Reid and Pelosi, suggest that things may, ever so incrementally, be a changin’.
It’s frustrating as all hell, but unlearning a generation’s worth of bad habits is hard work, dontcha know?
The only reason I can possibly see in the end of this endless Friedman cycle is the approach of the ‘08 elections.
War is just politics by other means, as the man said.
Occam’s Razor people…
A large majority of the American people are against the war; a huge majority of the Democratic base is against the war; the war can be ended by a single house defunding it, YET the Democrats are trying to come up with a way to fiddle around for at least another Friedman.
Is the best explanation that the Democrats are too scared (of what or whom?) to end this war, or at this point can we finally admit that the Democratic leadership as well as a very sizable number of Democrats in the House and the Senate, while opposed to the way the Bush administration is conducting the war, actually favors its continuation?
This is not about spinelessness or political cluelessness. It’s about a bipartisan commitment to militarism. And it will only stop when the American people, and the Democratic grassroots and “netroots” in particular, demand an end to the gamesmanship and an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
Dems know this: If Iraq somehow manages to resemble hell to an even greater degree between the withdrawal of the troops and the ’08 campaigning, then *no one* who supports the war now will have the decency or common sense not to blame this on those that actually had the guts to see that the US presence in Iraq has not mattered since at least a few… Parseks. Ago.
Then you’d better believe Steyn and the other infra-sentients will create a semi-factual avalanche of disastrous news of the Iraqi bloodshed, something their godglands have caused them to brand as defeatism and MSM attempts to portray the invasion as incapable of stabilizing the country sufficiently.
“See, the blood and horror was only a sign of deceleration of the Iraqi miracle *after* OUR BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN were forcibly ripped out of their character-building, patience-demanding mission!”
They are expecting the US population to gamble: while tax-money, environmental protection and catastrophy-reconstruction measures are sapped by Operation Vestern Virility the warmongerers say that a withdrawal would be even more detrimental than the effects of continuing warfare until said negative post-withdrawal effects have been made impossible – shame they do not know how this will be realized…
It’s also about bipartisan commitment to “We Must Save Our Phoney-Baloney Jobs, Gentlemen!” We the Peeps aren’t “falling for” anything, and we haven’t been for quite a while. Face it, this plutocracy of corporately-owned Rethugs, Dems, and Media-o-crats don’t give a flyin’ fuck what “the people” want, and they won’t until enough peasants carrying torches and pitchforks overrun Versailles. Maybe not even then.
You people are all just cynical America haters.
Yes, I know they have lied a lot on this war. Well, maybe about everything they have ever said is a lie about Iraq.
But THIS TIME they’re telling the truth!! They are!! They just are!!!
If Iraq somehow manages to resemble hell to an even greater degree between the withdrawal of the troops and the ‘08 campaigning, then *no one* who supports the war now will have the decency or common sense not to blame this on those that actually had the guts to see that the US presence in Iraq has not mattered since at least a few… Parseks. Ago.
Nonsense. If US troops are out of the country, the public’s attention will go elsewhere.
Once American troops are out of Iraq, the American public will forget Iraq even exists. This isn’t a good thing, but it’s a fact of life. Unless we’re killing them, or they’re killing us, most Americans really don’t care about foreign countries.
Think about how closely Americans have followed events in Somalia or Kosovo or Haiti following recent U.S. interventions. Heck, think how closely they followed events in Vietnam after the fall of Saigon.
Ah, aren’t these the exact same asshats who said JUST A MONTH AGO that if things weren’t better bu AUGUST they’d abandon the President?
—
if you’ll give me one more chance
I swear that I will never lie to you again
because now I see the destructive power of a lie
they’re stronger than truth
I can’t believe I ever hurt you
I swear
I will never to you lie again, please
just give me one more chance
I will never lie to you again
I swear
that I will never tell a lie
I will never tell a lie
no, no
ha ha ha ha ha hah haa haa haa haaa
sucker
sucker!
oh, sucker
I am a liar
yeah, I am a liar
yeah I like it
I feel good
ohh I am a liar
yeah
I lie
I lie
I lie
oh, I lie
oh I lie
I lie
yeah
ohhh I’m a liar
I lie
yeah
I like it
I feel good
I’ll lie again
and again
I’ll lie again and again
and I’ll keep lying
I promise
—
Ahhh, good ‘ol Henry Rollins. He knows the score.
What truly terrifies me is how many people will probably fall for this bullshit.
I am, like, years beyond giving the American public the benefit of the doubt at this point.
“Translation: republicans are waiting until it’s politically expedient to defy the president, so as to deny accusations of blind bushism to the democratic party in 08.”
*Ding* That has always been the plan for the Republics. This is precisely why the Dems have to keep forcing this issue, in order to make for some very entertaining anti-GOP campaign material. I think September really will be the political end-game in terms of GOP support of the war. The war might not end, but more GOPers will be forced to go along with Dem measures like benchmarks and timetables.
We should all invest heavily in flip flops between now and then.
You guys are forgetting the power of Bush’s Freedom Codpiece. It has the amazing power to make Republicans forsake their own rational self-interest for its glory.
I’m serious. No Republican will ever stand up to Bush in any meaningful way, even if it means losing their jobs. I don’t understand it, and I don’t think they do either.
I invite people to go and tell this poster to wake up and smell the coffee.
Why is Alberto Gonzales twisting in the wind? To save Karl Rove. Why is it necessary to save Karl Rove? Because all the Republicans care about right now is 2008. Rove is their knight in shining armor when it comes to electoral high jinx; he’s their electoral Sorcerer Supreme. He must be protected at all costs, so the Repubs can retake Congress and stay in the White House in ’08.
2008 is of equal or greater importance to the Dems, which is why they are burning so much fuel on this U.S. attorneys scandal — it leads back to Karl Rove, and even if Rove manages to slip out of being indicted for anything on it, this will, hopefully, take several important warheads out of the Republican missile silos for votejacking in ’08.
Which brings us to the Iraq War. The Dems really don’t want to end the Iraq War; they want it to continue being on ongoing clusterfuck that enrages the American voter beyond all let or reason, as long as they can pin it mainly on the Republicans. This requires a careful balancing act; they have to look like they’re opposing the war, without actually opposing it in any meaningful way that might actually accomplish something. They need the war for 2008, and they need it to be as bad or worse than it has been to date. As long as this war can be spun as a Republican blunder/catastrophe, the Dems have no interest in ending it prematurely. And they certainly have no interest in ‘winning’ it, which is just as well, since, you know, we can’t, anyway.
The Dems will end the war — in 2008, with a Democratic President in office, so the Democratic Party can take credit for getting us the hell out of Bush and the Repub’s biggest mistake.
My worry is, Bush badly wants to vindicate himself by winning this thing, and he’s fucking insane, too. What’s he got left to pull out a win with? What’s he still got sitting on the bench? Well, we have all these nuclear warheads. And, barring that, I’m sure we have some interesting bacteriological and/or chemical shit sitting around in a top secret armory somewhere.
I don’t think Bush actually makes any real decisions, so I find that vaguely reassuring, but I believe Cheney DOES make decisions, and Cheney is even more murderously psychotic than Bush.
So, I’m waiting… waiting for the Iraqi people to suddenly start dying of some terrible plague, like the Old Testament wrath of God on ancient Mesopotamia (which I’m sure is pretty much the wording FOX News will use to report on it). Or for the U.S. Army to stumble across a huge cache of “Saddam’s chemical weaponry”, and there to be a ‘regrettable accident’ with it. Or, y’know, if Cheney just gets impatient, for the neutron bombs to start going off. And then, you know, the Republicans will have WON the war that the Defeatocrats had written off as a dead loss.
I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that the people who could decide to deploy such weapons wouldn’t do it… in fact, I’m sure they’re studying scenarios featuring the use of such weapons right now. Crunching numbers. How many American troops could die as collateral damage before electoral support completely collapses? How plausible would it be to move all our troops back into hardened bases before “accidents” with “Saddam’s hidden chemical arms” start to occur? How much damage to the oil infrastructure can be avoided? How quickly will the rest of the world kowtow to us, once we show our true strength?
What they won’t ask is how high the Iraqi casualty rate will be, because beyond “nearly all of them will die”, they don’t need exact figures, or even estimates. It’s not like the American voter cares, or anything.
“September is the key,� said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.)
Please. Once Bush slaps you around with his Freedom Codpiece a few more times, you’ll yelling about Harry Reid giving aid and comfort to Osama bin Saddam again.
In mild defense of Jim Moran, he has been consistently against the Iraq war since the beginning. He hasn’t been the staunchest resister of the administration, but he has been against it from the get-go.
He’s no socialist, but he’s above average for the Democratic party. The one thing I think he consistently gets wrong is his support for the various “free trade” agreements.
Plus, he’s the guy that got in a shoving match with Duke Cunningham on the floor of the House. That’s worth a lot of points in my book.
(Yeah, he’s my congressional representative, although this district is such a safely Democratic one that I always vote for the current Green Party candidate with no concerns about later being accused of OMGNADERing the election.)
Doc Nebula’s right, y’know.
Look. They gave us the answer a week ago. Petraeus blew all the Friedmans in the world right to hell. We all saw it. But oddly, nobody’s commenting on it’s ramifications. Which are the HUGE disconnect between military reality, political posturing and the patience of the population.
The military says Iraq will require “An enormous committment over time”. It’s obvious that those resources and that time will not be available to them. So it’s over. And every single death from now going forward, even more than those that came before, is a wasted life…
mikey
The good news not being reported by the liberal media is that Mr. Haney is in Congress. He’s going by the name of Zach Wamp, R-TN. Hey, add Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, and a strong case can be made that Tennessee has THE dumbest congressional delegation in the world. (Are there any dumber?)
OT? I think not. Congress supports Bush Jr. because Congress represents rural/red America, not us. Even 28% approval is not a problem, as long as it’s the right 28%, and includes the Falwells, Dobsons, Robertsons, et al.
Why are the Dems pulling their punches? They should be screaming about how the Bushies are simply holding the troops hostage in Iraq. The Bushies essentially have said ‘We’ll let them die in the desert before we’ll bring the troops home due to lack of funds!’ When you put it that way, even Bush’s thorny base must feel ashamed.
But, as someone mentioned earlier in this thread, the Dems want the war going on… badly… for 08′. And there are other reasons both sides of the isle want this war to continue…
“If we don’t see a light at the end of the tunnel, September is going to be a very bleak month for this administration.�
There’s a tunnel?
Hey, I never fell for it. I didn’t want to go in in the first place. Months ago, while you wanted to stay another Friedman -or-two, I was all about “Get Them Out NOWâ„¢!!” I’ll believe exiting when I see it, and I’m not exoecting it while Shrub is still in office!
But, as someone mentioned earlier in this thread, the Dems want the war going on… badly… for 08′.
There may be some Democrats who want to use the Iraq occupation as a wedge on conservatives. However, I really think the the main reason that the Democrats are not pushing too hard on Iraq is not because of a secret strategy memo, or a Machiavellian plot, but rather because they are still scared of Bush. They are still scared of looking like ‘Traitors’, they believe the media narrative that anyone who questions Iraq or Afghanistan is hurting the troops, and, despite their upset win of November 2006, they still feel weak and paranoid- waiting for the other shoe to drop. That, I think, is the real reason they are not doing more.
It seems to me that real Machiavellian operators are kinda rare, even in politics. I believe that scared people, on the other hand, are pretty common.
And, of course, there is the fact that many of the Democrats believe in US Neo-imperialism just like Republicans do, so why would they want to stop occupying Iraq and Afghanistan?