Now he goes and calls General Petraeus a liar!
BASH: You talked several times about General Petraeus. You know that he
is here in town. [...] [President Bush] said that General Petraeus is
going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is
progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you
believe him when [General Petraeus] says that?REID: No, I don’t believe him, because it’s not happening.
Here is the Video:
[youtube QV4DIURvbwY]
McQ smacks him hard. Maybe Petraeus is a liar, though he has generally been recognized as a straight shooter willing to criticize the administration, but I don’t know the man. The question I have, is if Petraeus is a liar, how would Reid know? Is he in any position to know?
Maybe we should ask some of his constituents who would have some insight:
“We’re not losing this war.”
That’s how a Las Vegas Army Reserve sergeant and Iraq war veteran who is heading out again for Operation Iraqi Freedom reacted Friday to Nevada Sen. Harry Reid’s assessment that the war in Iraq is “lost.”
“I don’t believe the war is lost,” Sgt. George Turkovich, 24, said as he stood with other soldiers near a shipping container that had been packed for their deployment to Kuwait.
[...]
“Unfortunately, politics has taken a huge role in this war affecting our rules of engagement,” said Turkovich, a 2001 Palo Verde High School graduate. “This is a guerrilla war that we’re fighting, and they’re going to tie our hands.
“So it does make it a lot harder for us to fight the enemy, but we’re not losing this war,” he said.
For the most part, the 50-plus soldiers from a detachment of the Army Reserve’s 314th Combat Service Support Battalion expressed similar views about Reid’s war-is-lost comments this week. They respectfully disagreed with the Democrat.
All volunteers, they were upbeat and excited about the deployment. Some said they were nervous and were trying not to dwell on leaving their families for a year.
[...]
In the eyes of Turkovich, who served as an infantryman with the 82nd Airborne Division for seven months each in Iraq and Afghanistan, the mission is nearing completion but is not over yet.
“Our mission statement when we first went into Iraq was to get Saddam out of power and stand up a new government and a new army,” Turkovich said.
“We’ve gone in there. Saddam is now out of power, and we’ve stood up a new army and we’ve stood up a new government,” he said. “Now we’re just kind of the crutch, nursing it along for right now, and hopefully they’ll be able to get off those training wheels soon and they’ll be able to stand for themselves.”
The 314th’s stateside commander, Lt. Col. Steven Cox, said the political controversy swirling around the war “does weigh upon us because the representatives are supposed to represent American sentiments.”
“I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that the American people would leave their military dangling in the wind the way the good senator is doing,” Cox said.
“Defeatism … from our elected officials does not serve us well in the field,” he said. “They embolden the enemy, and they actually leave them with the feeling that they can defeat us and win this.
“All they have to do is wait us out because the American resolve is waning,” he said.
In response the Senator had an underling respond:
“He understands the sacrifices they make and the effects felt by their families when they are called to serve overseas,” Summers said.
“That is why he believes we owe it to them to give them all the resources they need and provide them with a strategy that is worthy of their sacrifices,” he wrote. “Military generals, the American public, and a bipartisan majority of Congress all agree that to stay the course of the president’s failed strategy fails our troops and will not lead to success in Iraq.”
Well, to quote the officer above, he says you are undermining their mission and emboldening the enemy, he says you are leaving the “military dangling in the wind.”
How about the opinion of a soldier in Anbar Senator Reid?
All,
I just wanted to let you know what is happening where I am in Iraq. I don’t want to say this is in response to Harry Reid, but his comments the other day are not in line with what we’re seeing.
We are winning over here in Al Anbar province. I don’t know about Baghdad, but Ramadi was considered THE hotspot in Al Anbar, the worse province, and it has been very quiet. The city is calm, the kids are playing in the streets, the local shops are open, the power is on at night, and daily commerce is the norm rather than the exception. There have been no complex attacks since March. That is HUGE progress. This quiet time is allowing the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police to establish themselves in the eyes of the people. The Iraqi people also want IA’s and IP’s in their areas. The Sunni Sheiks are behind us and giving us full support. This means that almost all Sunnis in Al Anbar are now committed to supporting the US and Iraqi forces. It also means that almost all insurgents left out here are AQ. FYI, the surge is just beginning. Gen Petraeus’ strategy is just getting started and we’re seeing huge gains here.
However, you don’t see Harry Reid talking about this. When I saw what he said, it really pissed me off. That guy does not know what is going on over here because he hasn’t bothered to come and find out. The truth on the ground in Al Anbar is not politically convenient for him, so he completely ignored it.
This war can be won. We just need the time to get the IA and IP operating on their own. Gen Petraeus is treating the war like a counter-insurgency rather than a stability operation. For non-military personnel, there is a HUGE difference between the two. What we’ve been doing in Iraq since Petraeus took over is completely different than what we were doing under Gen Casey. However, you don’t hear the press or the democrats say that. Most of them are too committed to saying we’ve lost to further their own political agendas that they cannot acknowledge we’re doing something totally different and it is working.
I don’t think the honesty problem has anything to do with Petraeus or the soldiers Senator Reid.
Or as the White House points out, Senator Reid is “confused.” How delicate:
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “By ordering his troop surge,” the President “ignored the advice of the Iraq Study Group.” (Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Remarks On Iraq, Washington, DC, 4/23/07)
- Iraq Study Group Report: “We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.” (“The Iraq Study Group Report,” 2006)
- Iraq Study Group Co-Chair James A. Baker, III: “Setting a deadline for withdrawal regardless of conditions in Iraq makes even less sense today because there is evidence that the temporary surge is reducing the level of violence in Baghdad. As Baghdad goes, so goes Iraq. The Iraq Study Group said it could support a short-term surge to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up training and equipping of Iraqi soldiers if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines such steps would be effective. Gen. David Petraeus has so determined.” (James A. Baker, III, Op-Ed, “A Path to Common Ground,” The Washington Post, 4/5/07)
Did the Senator read the ISG report? I don’t think so. he just knew it was critical and decided what that criticism should have meant rather than what it says. I think the Senator has been studying Glenn Greenwald.
Sen. Reid: “The first thing that needs to be done is a regional conference.” “Have, as the Iraq Study Group said, have the United States meet with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and, yes, Iran, to sit down and see what we can do to resolve the issues that are so ugly in Iraq.” (Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Remarks On Iraq, Washington, DC, 4/23/07)
- A regional conference is scheduled for early May: “Ministers from Iraq’s neighboring countries, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and industrialized nations will hold a meeting in Egypt early next month to discuss the situation in Iraq, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Saturday. … Ministers from Iraq’s neighbors as well as Bahrain and Egypt, and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, will hold a meeting in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik on May 3-4, Zebari said. … Also in attendance, Zebari said, will be officials from the so-called Group of Eight industrialized nations: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S.” (“Ministers From 20 Countries To Meet In Egypt Over Iraq Next Month,” The Associated Press, 4/7/07)
Does the man even read the newspaper?
Sen. Reid: “General Petraeus has said the ultimate solution in Iraq is a political one, not a military one.” (Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Remarks On Iraq, Washington, DC, 4/23/07)
- Of the President’s FY 2007 supplemental request, the Senate cut $243 million in critical programs that would help the Iraqis meet important political and economic benchmarks. The Senate added $120 million to the President’s request, of which $70 million is for refugees and internally displaced persons and $50 million is for a specific USAID program, leaving a net cut from the President’s request of $243 million.
- The $243 million in net Senate cuts included:
- $70 million to build the governing capacity of local governments.
- $50 million to help the Iraqis draft and implement key legislative and legal reforms.
- 50 million to support rule of law programs so Iraqis can better govern themselves.
- $43 million to promote democracy and civil society efforts.
- $40 million to build the governing capacity of the national government.
- $10 million for private sector development.
- $100 million to support our diplomatic mission and civilian presence, including $41 million for supporting the doubling the PRTs.
- President Bush: “We fully recognize that there has to be political progress and economic progress, along with military progress, in order for that government to succeed.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks, East Grand Rapids, MI, 4/20/07)
Obviously the political solution Senator Reid meant was back here in the US, because he is undermining all the tools for political success. Obviously the economic solution he was concerned about was in lining their own pocketbooks as it turns out the Democrats are raking in the funding now that they have power and pork is swelling. More dissonance:
Sen. Reid today: “We don’t have meetings with the President, not real substantive meetings, he holds carefully scripted sessions where he repeats his talking points.” (Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Remarks On Iraq, Washington, DC, 4/23/07)
-
- Sen. Reid immediately following last Wednesday’s meeting: “Well, we had an hour-long meeting with the President. It was a good exchange; everyone voiced their considered opinion about the war in Iraq – the conversation was with the war in Iraq, that’s basically all it was, with a few variations, but mainly that. … [P]eople gave their opinions, they gave their considered opinion what was going wrong and right with the war in Iraq. And I think we have too little of that. I think it was extremely important the President hear from us. And he heard from us in detail. And I think he needs to hear more of conversations from people like us – who don’t always tell him what he wants to hear. I think we told him things today that he needed to hear.” (Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Remarks After Meeting With The President, Washington, DC, 4/18/07)
- Speaker Pelosi on the meeting: “I think the conversation that we had is the basis for future conversations on this. But each side was very clear with its position that that doesn’t mean that that’s the end of the conversation. And that is what is known as a negotiation and government, that it’s not just one meeting.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Remarks After Meeting With The President, Washington, DC, 4/18/07)
- Sen. Reid immediately following last Wednesday’s meeting: “Well, we had an hour-long meeting with the President. It was a good exchange; everyone voiced their considered opinion about the war in Iraq – the conversation was with the war in Iraq, that’s basically all it was, with a few variations, but mainly that. … [P]eople gave their opinions, they gave their considered opinion what was going wrong and right with the war in Iraq. And I think we have too little of that. I think it was extremely important the President hear from us. And he heard from us in detail. And I think he needs to hear more of conversations from people like us – who don’t always tell him what he wants to hear. I think we told him things today that he needed to hear.” (Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Remarks After Meeting With The President, Washington, DC, 4/18/07)
I think he needs to write down what he has done in his appointment book. Confused?
UPDATE: Captain Ed takes on a few other nonsensical statements from Reid. Here are a few of the false or misleading statements I didn’t specifically address, but Ed does:
General Petraeus Says The War Is A “Lost Causeâ€
General Petraeus Says There Is No Military Solution
General Petraeus Does Not Support the Surge
General Petraeus Does Not Need Immediate Funding (okay, I have addressed this elsewhere extensively, but not here, and in the comments some deny it has had an effect.)
Go read Captain Ed take apart Reid bit by bit.
[tags] Senator Reid, Military, Iraq, funding, General Petraeus [/tags]
It is obvious that mark is not interested in honest debate – better informed than leftside perhaps – but mired in his own prejudiced certitude none the less. This quote though, I think shows the greatest divide between those both actively, and reluctantly, supporting the surge, and the ‘embarrass Bush regardless of the cost’ defeatocrats.
The Michael Moore, Al Gore, Morgan Spurlock mindset that so dominates the far left seemingly has to find a boogieman to blame all our ails upon. It’s not surprising that the boogieman they construct is a caricature of their political opponents. In spite of numerous explanations and reams of evidence, they gleefully slide across Occum’s Razor (figuratively) to latch upon the most preposterous theories.
So what “[i]s the purpose of occupying a Islamic country indefinately[sic], against the wishes of the majority of it’s people?†No purpose what so ever. But that is not what we (the US) are trying to do. And more importantly, not what anyone supporting the surge is advocating. Recognizing this however, takes all the wind out of many sails, so they have to reject it – the narrative posited by Kos, Glenns, Atrios, and parroted by mark et. al., must be nurtured, propagated… and defended at all costs. Blame must be laid at McChimpyHalliburton/BusHitler’s feet.
Mark, Lance isn’t a bad guy, although his opinions drive me insane. Try to clarify your points.
Lance, for old times’ sake, here’s an argument with your described logic.
#1. The essential results of the line of argument you follow regarding funding are that Congress can never oppose, control or contradict Presidential foreign policy.
After all, if their only power is “the power of the purse” – oh, but wait, every time they use the power of the purse, they’re treasonous for killing off our soldiers – then there is no effective way to ever stop a president from pursuing a disasterous war – any disasterous war.
I know you’ll slip around this with all kinds of evasions, claim that’s not what you’re supporting, but you are. Right now, in real time, away from the abstractions – you’re undermining Congressional Democrats’s ability to use their Constitution-granted powers to control foreign policy. Not that their powers are limited to the purse – the plain text of Article I makes it abundantly clear that that was a million miles away from founders’ intent. But it’s the most important one, and you are pursuing its functional elimination, informally, by shaming.
I bet you don’t agree that that’s your purpose or your effect. Well, Harry Reid doesn’t like to be told that his free speech and duty-bound objective analysis of the war are making terrorists cheer (Don’t even get me started on the shameful and embarrassing “morale” argument)
Not that this means I agree with you that using the purse is hurting our soldiers. So onto point #2.
Furthermore, the fact that the DoD claims the Safety of America is imperiled by delays in surge funding are the exact same people that make the exact same claim when Donald Rumsfeld tried to kill the V-22 Osprey, or the Crusader. And you know what, the DoD wasn’t provably wrong then, either! Because everything that could possibly be used to protect America in any possible way, not having it endangers our troops.
None of this makes any threat to our troops from this supposed funding delay observable – meaning a break from prior battlefield trends – in any quantifiable manner. What you have are a bunch of bullsh*t from DoD bureaucrats who say the same thing in practically every recorded instance of not getting something they want. You can make the ‘argument’ that US troops are in danger, but you’re making the argument because you can, not because you genuinely believe it. You’re smart, but unfortunately, I think your posts here are sensationalist and manipulative. I’m sorry, my friend, because in comments you’d probably admit something like “I admit we haven’t really seen any particular battlefield deteriorative metrics that we can tie to funding delays.” And yet, your posts lead people to imagine that very thing.
#3: Here’s why I think, whatever you think of yourself as, I’m not surprised Mark thinks you’re a Republican. It’s because you are in no way, whatsoever, and I don’t mean this to be an insult, anything like evenhanded in your treatment of “who’s hurting the troops”. You know what’s hurting the U.S. Army 100 times worse than any imaginable problems in funding delays, in all kinds of quantifiable ways? This war. Read Barry McAfferey’s memorandum. Read Intel Dump – run by a vet, Phillip Carter – find “The Breaking of The Army” The Army is being annihilated by the impact of this – and you are focused in like a laser on some vaporous damage done by an *eyeroll* unheard of “Four Week Delay!” on a war funding bill – a war that has killed thousands of soldiers and orders of magnitude more of civilians, and is closing on $1 trillion dollars in expenses. It’s their dam*ed right and duty to oppose this war if they don’t believe in it, for the protection of both the Republic and our collapsing volunteer army, and funding seems to be the tools the constitution gave them – and when you laser on them and ignore the disasterous pain inflicted on soldiers, and the Army, by this war, you selectively stigmatize “hurting the army” from the Dems, but give the Admin free rein to use the army to death, like a horse ridden into the desert. Your blindness creates the effect of hypocrisy.
#4. Speaking of evenhanded – and if even if you can’t agree with the others, you dam* well ought to be able to admit this – where will your outrage be when George Bush vetoes funding for his own soldiers to score cheap political points about war? When he vetoes funding – exposing soldiers to your much tauted magnificent danger from funding delay – to avoid a withdrawal advocated by the his own Baker-Hamilton, a majority of the public in poll after poll, and the Congress of the United States? If you had one breath of objectivity in your body, you’d be able to admit that Bush vetoing this bill is an act of free will, a deliberate choice that will literally and immediately cause of risks of the same type and nature to the troops that you’re lambasting the Democrats for. But this entirely escapes your criticism. That’s why I know you don’t really care about risks to the troops. Or, after decrying Dems for delaying the bill, you would beg Bush to sign the funding and excoriate him for a veto – for taking deliberate action to withhold those funds from his army – after all, the troops are in such dire jeopardy, right?
You know another reason, I spontaneously realize, that my posting at Q and O has survived, and not here? For reasons I don’t fully understand, I take this place more seriously than that place – of course, I take both of them way too seriously and shouldn’t be posting at either. It must be something to do with the tone set here. Nevertheless, the greater depth I sometimes get into here in comments just makes me angrier that the posts always seem to push the same lines. You clip away at the tip of the wedge – Harry Reid, politician-style, giving different mixed messages – and beneath it roam the icebergs that you know everyone else is pushing all around you.
On the other hand, I applaud you for letting the Conjecturer post here. I know you’re committed to free speech, anyway. And even diversity of viewpoints. The above is mine.
glasnost
Speaking for myself, as a libertarian, when any bill is laden with pork to get any majority to vote for it, well…
And knowing where you come from glasnost, your demanding outrage is… well, lets just say your demands impress me not.
Bains I haven’t seen anything by Michael Moore in years and am not even sure who Morgan Spurlock is. Might as well throw Ward Churchill in there for strawmen too while you’re at it cuz I never heard of him and neither did anyone else I know of until wingnuts started trumpeting him as some paragon of our thinking.
Wow, this comes from an adherent to party that told us Saddam was a dire threat to the United States and trots out the spector of bin Laden (whom they don’t even bother to catch) whenever there’s a domestic threat politically. Gimme a break.
Name me a worse president in US history than George W. Bush. Not even Nixon comes close.
What’s your timeline then? What’s that you say, you don’t have one? That’s the definition of indefinately. George Bush himself (the worst president the US has ever seen) says the next president will decide when we leave Iraq. As has been the pattern his whole life he’s trying to leave his mess for somebody else to clean up and he could give a damn about those paying the price.
glasnost I noticed that quirk too. I write something snarky about Gates not controlling his budget and just because I didn’t mention that George Bush is the worst president the US has ever seen in that paragraph these two construe that to mean I agree with them and therefore I’m inconsistent.
Nicely put glasnost.
P.S. GWB still the worst preisident…
Lance, I thought I would follow up – just to clarify, I haven’t been on ACHJ much, and I sort of get the idea that it bugs you that I stopped hanging around, and all – it really is, most of all, because I just shouldn’t be blogging. It’s not out of disrespect for you or a grudge against the site.
“ACHJ” ???
I won’t presume to speak for Lance, but I can’t think of any reason why your absence, while noticed and lamented, would make any of us feel “disrespected.” Especially since, IIRC, you mentioned before that you had much more pressing things to take care of (a manuscript?).
Frankly, I think we’re all pretty happy anyone comes around at all, whether the visits are long or short in between. So, don’t sweat it. We’ll be here. Visit when you can.
I saw it when it came out. My favorite film of theirs in fact.
I never said I don’t consider any other policy valid. I can think of many other policies that are valid. I disagree with many, but then I have disagreed with Bush’s for the most part. You can continue asserting things about me that you can’t possibly know, but that won’t get us anywhere. Notice, not once in this conversation have I claimed a belief of yours that you don’t explicitly express. I won’t claim perfection here. I do it on occasion, but I usually admit it and even apologize. Also, while no fan of Bush I usually suggest that Presidents seem different years later. Reagan and Eisenhower seem better to many liberals (actually, I am the liberal, progressive, leftist, whatever is more accurate) than they did at one time, as does the first Bush. Others fall. As a value oriented investor, I’ll guess Bush will seem better in retrospect, his stock is pretty low. No particular reason, just that is how it tends to work out.
That is funny. I don’t take the word unquestioningly of anybody, and certainly not a bureaucrat. You know nothing of my ideology. Keep insulting me, regular readers are laughing. Actually I built my case on the CRS. If you bothered to read the posts I referred you to you would know that. Whatever the “word” of Gates, the cuts and shifts have been coming. If you followed the links to QandO you would know that. Once again. If you say those consequences are being inflicted on our forces purposely, I am willing to give it some credence if you provide some evidence of that fact. I love slamming duplicitous bureaucrats. I have never thought Republican bureaucrats were any better than Democrat ones.
Now I will admit, that was pretty clever. It never occurred to me that anyone would interpret it that way. I guess you can get lazy with regular commenters and readers who would never assume I meant that. If this were about scoring points you would get one.
However, it isn’t about scoring points. It is a discussion, and that was just confirmation bias short circuiting your ability to interpret what I am saying in light of who I am. Kind of Greenwaldian. I meant only that I wish they had the money, had budgeted and run the department well enough to make your assertion that they had all they needed true. You don’t need to convince me that the defense department is full of poor resource management. One of the reasons I invited Joshua to post here is he follows just that issue. It isn’t a Republican problem however. It is an institutional and bureaucratic problem. Amusingly, on this issue Rummy was the good guy. I disagree with much of his approach to Iraq, but on procurement issues he was unpopular precisely because he was taking on cherished gold plating.
I have written extensively and forcefully on congresses role in this. They are fully within their rights to defund the war. I want no king. I don’t agree with that course of action, but that is the course they should take if they want to end the war. Instead we get games like the funding bill. You can disagree with that view, but do so. Don’t build strawmen so you can reinforce some imagined moral superiority.
No. The accountability is the vote. They get the votes, they can end it. What you seem to be arguing is that accountability means getting your way. If that isn’t what you mean explain yourself.
Some of that is correct, exactly when have you heard me defend Bush on that? The funding delays went into the decision, but it was not the primary rationale. You are correct. Not as pathetic as Reid, but pretty damn weak. It is typical however, you were around during the Clinton administration right? And before you jump on me about Clinton, I have defended him here many times. In fact, I did in another thread this very day.
Maybe, and I read your piece. I’ll discuss it later maybe. However, I would prefer we stick to the issues at hand. One note, the army is not crippled. We have won wars with army’s under far more strain than this one. Ideal? no. Crippled? No as well.
glasnost,
Good to have you here. I hope this is more fruitful than with Mark, but my lack of patience with someone new and unfriendly from the get go is probably partially responsible. Hopefully your sanity remains intact. Mine has survived you just fine.
Oh come on glasnost. I have never said opposing the president is treasonous. I think withdrawal is a bad idea. I oppose it. I think it will be devastating to the Iraqi people. You disagree. Period.
No, I am opposing it. You know, Democracy. In this post I am shaming, because he deserves to be shamed for saying shameful, misleading things. Kind of like pointing out Bush’s disingenuousness about extending the tours. Quite proper as well.
I am sorry that in a few short months your party has shown itself to have all the ethics, honesty and money grubbing greed of the ……Republicans! Not my problem. I think I had a post sometime back, Same boss as the old boss? Maybe it was McQ. Either way. Reid deserves every criticism I give, and it doesn’t matter what your opinion of the war is. My main points are true regardless.
I don’t know why it bothers you so much. You don’t see me defending Republicans when they do such things (since my Republican bona fides are so obvious;^)) I just shrug it off as par for the course. You need to get a little more cynical. I think it is the reason for my amiable disposition. I don’t expect much and therefore they rarely disappoint me, and I am not stuck acting as if Ted Stevens and Trent Lott are anything but the parasitic buffoons they are. You should try it, it is very liberating.
Well, Harry Reid doesn’t like to be told that his free speech and duty-bound objective analysis of the war are making terrorists cheerExcept your statements about me are not correct. It is true about Reid. It may be necessary (if you believe that the war should end) but it is nevertheless true. Life is like that. Sometimes doing what you feel is right, check that, a great deal of the time, it has mixed effects. I don’t avoid that. My position does not entail some happy future where every action has nothing but good consequences. Reid wants to convince himself and everybody else his words and actions have no negative consequences. They do. You, Mark and Reid may be right that withdrawal is the best course, but it doesn’t change many of the negatives no matter how much you hate that those who disagree point them out.
How special that you are so sure of what I believe. As with Mark, I’ll point out that I don’t do that to you. Moreover, I haven’t claimed they are in direct danger, but I know enough to know that funding, no matter how unwise, cannot just be moved as needed from such programs. You are right about your general point on the weapons systems, it just doesn’t have any bearing on this. I will argue that many of the things that funding delays are impacting are hurting readiness and depriving the Iraqi forces of needed funding which legally cannot be shifted. I also know that the funds specifically for commanders on the ground to disburse legally have to come in the special appropriations bill. They cannot come from other programs. Those are precisely the funds used for political and economic aspects of any solution to the problem in Iraq. I do believe that. The CRS made it clear that these types of areas would be impacted, and according to Mark and Reid it is an authoritative take. The reason they are right, though they ignored the reports true import, is that funds are not legally completely fungible. Maybe they should be, but they are not.
I wouldn’t, because both personal contacts and military commanders in Iraq have said it is already having an effect. If they are lying please source it. I’ll be glad to post it. If I don’t, I promise Joshua will.
I won’t respond to number three because that is true of war period. I deny your annihilate remark, but I already addressed that. As for Carter et al. I do read them. I have read Carter since he first set up shop. I also read McCaffrey, have you read his recent work? I have. His view isn’t much different than mine.
On this issue I am not “evenhanded.” I think the Democrats are wrong. What is to be even handed about? That doesn’t excuse Mark, or you, for claiming things I haven’t said, or believe. Criticize me if you think the things Reid said are accurate, not because I point them out. You can’t, because he is plainly misrepresenting Petraeus, the funding (and that is true even if your argument on it is correct, because that is not his argument.)
No. it means I am wrong in your opinion. Maybe very wrong, not hypocritical. Nor am I blindly following Bush, do I need to list the long number of complaints I have with the way he has handled the war? Those are old battles not relevant to this discussion, but there is nothing blind about it.
They are not cheap points. It is the fundamental disagreement. A fundamental disagreement that could have been dealt with one way or the other weeks ago. He may win or lose, you know, democratically?
My point, and one that was made weeks ago, is that there is no reason the vote can’t happen as soon as possible. The Republicans purposely rolled over on the bill (and if you don’t believe it I have e-mails from before hand saying that was exactly the plan, and motive, from the senate) just to give it the chance to be decided one way or the other by the beginning of April. They told the Democratic leadership that was what they were going to do, but the Democratic leadership decided it would be better to wait and try and make Bush appear like the one who was delaying things. I am not letting that go by unnoticed. It may work, but I am going to do my best to reveal it for what it is, just like I was glad to rail against the Republicans when they pulled games to stuff their pockets with campaign cash via hidden earmarks. I watch the process glasnost. The Republicans may be being cynical as well, but they still gave the bill a chance for democratic debate. I don’t mind cynical things which are the right things, even if I don’t think it shows any true virtue.
Who said dire? I do think it is affecting their mission. No, I know it is. I don’t think they will be reduced to throwing rocks and eating rats.
I don’t think you caught it Mark, but bains isn’t a Republican, so he adheres not to what you claim.
You know, that was lame when the Republicans said the same thing in the nineties. The timeline is based on conditions, and you don’t know them ahead of time. The conditions may be bad, hopeless, or due to rousing success. They are not based on some arbitrary date. “Roosevelt, if the Germans haven’t capitulated by December we are coming home.”
You know, re read what you and glasnost said. Not the same thing. Your answer assumed that there were funding issues. If you didn’t mean it then you were just blowing smoke because you haven’t been able to back up anything you said, because Reid is showing his ass. Like with Glasnost, I don’t get it. It doesn’t reflect on you, it doesn’t even vitiate the case against the war. It shows that Reid is out of his depth.
It does bug me, but I didn’t take it negatively. I took your previous e-mail on that in the spirit you intended it. It bugs me because I enjoy having you around. You get testy, but you usually give me the credit for trying to engage you honestly, and I hope you feel I do the same. If it were not for the war I suspect you and I would spend far more time agreeing, or at least arguing about things that didn’t piss you off so much. Like trade for instance. At least you are not like some who assume because my beliefs are so market oriented that I don’t care about the poor or am racist, or other such things. I appreciate that. I think you know I do care, you just think my solutions are wrong.
I try and extend you the same courtesy, I don’t think you want to keep blacks on the welfare plantation, think Arabs are incapable of democracy, or think you sympathize with Ward Churchill.
I hope Mark reflects on these many e-mails and re-reads them. I was a little more dismissive than typical with him, but he came in filled with assumptions and never backed off. That bugs me, but I never returned that particular fire. I kept it to the arguments, right or wrong. Still, I took a breath and have spent time defending rather than attacking from that point because I believe in left-right dialogue as you know, as much as I find those terms inadequate and I hoped he would come around. I also stepped back and realized where he came from once he showed me his diary. What bothers me here would be the tamest day ever over at kos. So I am trying to be patient, because in reading back over them I see someone who could be a productive person to discuss things with.
I don’t dislike the fireworks at Kos or LGF or such things out of any prudish moralizing. It can sometimes be fun. It just doesn’t lend itself to what I enjoy about this site, which is the ability to come on and say things and know that Joshua, you, Michael, Omar, Bains, and the rest are more interested in questioning the others views and thought processes than attacking. We aren’t perfect, I admit that, but we make a pretty good effort.
So Mark. I would like you to hang around. It may sound like I am talking down, but tone is hard to get across sometimes. I am actually interested in dialogue. Spend some time on the posts that are not so “of the moment” political. Stop attacking. Go read the music posts (There are not many, but especially Robby’s are really good. I especially recommend the one on X and Sunday Morning Coming Down.) Read Joshua’s News Brief (plenty there to give you blog fodder at kos) and don’t be so angry we disagree. If you get to Baton Rouge I’ll buy you a beer, or ten. Just disagree with me. It is okay, I take it really well.
My last piece of advice is don’t invest yourself so much in politicians. They will all disappoint you. Reid is acting pathetically. If I was in favor of withdrawal I would want him to shut up as well. Generally I wish Bush would shut up. If I were you I would want him to speak as often as possible.
I wish Iraq were being presided over by someone else, you should wish your side were represented better as well in my opinion, but you don’t seem to feel so, so that is it on that. I will admit I far prefer McConnell to what the Republicans had before. Sometimes it helps to get rid of the embarrassments. You also won’t feel obliged to defend them on my blog. I promise not to come defend Denny Hastert on yours (no laughing Michael.)
I already gave you my opinion on judging Bush, but I am glad we agree about Nixon. You should argue with McGovern on that. He thinks Nixon was a great President. Ironic, but true.
You may not have seen the Think Progress post, but it was they who brought the whole CRS meme to the forefront. I read it and investigated it. So did others. The CRS report confirms what the military was saying. Things have developed just the way it was claimed, with a few extra’s thrown in. I also asked that if you are going to say they are lying then you should have some evidence. Please provide it. They may be, and they are purposefully short changing the troops to make a “cheap political point” as Glasnost put it. Of course I would also like you to show that the CRS was fraudulent as well.
For what it’s worth mark, I used “mindset” for a reason. Moore, Gore and Spurlock all produced documentaries spouting a particularly bias POVs. Their mindset is to start with a conclusion and work backwards to prove their “thesis” is valid, using data selectively and dishonestly. I accuse you of belonging to that mindset, and nothing more.
You accuse me of using straw men, yet it is you that brings in Ward Churchill into discussion, someone that I did not mention, reference, nor even allude to. And that is the mindset Moore, Gore, and Spurlock as evidenced by their ‘croc’umentaries.
Wow, that last post was poorly written – I guess that’s what happens at 0230hrs MDT during intermissions of your dog’s episodic incontinence.
Pingback: Villainous Company
Eisenhower overthrew the democratically elected PM of Iran and installed the Shah. Death to America Day the Iranian Independence Day is the result of that. For what? For oil.
He also overthrew the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala and installed another murderous tinhorn dictator. A-holes like Castro and Chávez have been making hay out of that for decades.
Reagan is responsible for the deaths of 250,000 campesinos in Central America during his dirty little wars for the crime of wanting a better life for their children than the endentured servitude they lived under the oligarchs and multinationals Reagan supported and Eisenhower helped protect. He also pointlessly put marines in Beirut in 1982 with no mission and then withdrew them after over 250 were killed in their barracks by a truck bomb. It’s Osama Bin Laden’s favorite “Paper Tiger Americans” story. Let’s not forget he also traded arms for hostages with the enemy in his misgotten Iran Contra plan and broke the law to do it.
There is very good reason to suspect he committed treason by doing the same during the 1980 election by colluding with the Khomeini Iranian government. The weekend before our election the Iranians announced a deal to release our embassy hostages was possible. By Monday, the day before the election an ashened faced Carter had to announce that no deal was imminent. The October surprise worked well. On Reagan’s inauguration day the hostages were released. Proof of that? I have none. All presdiential records going back to the Ford Administration, that should have been released by now, were ordered kept secret by this administration as one of their first acts in office in 2001.
You call yourself a “liberal, progressive, leftist, whatever” but you think these guys look better in retrospect? I think you better stick with the whatever.
Then I suggest you write what you mean a little more plainly. And please try to be a little more succinct. I thought I was a wordy f*ck but your book length tomes meander all over the place and take forever to read and respond to.
After 6 years of this administration anybody who gives their politically appointees any benefit of the doubt is a fool. How many times do you have to be lied to before you get that?
We the people are not amused when Halliburton gets paid to deliver “sailboat fuel” and the Green Berets we trained quit and become contractors who follow no rules of engagement for 10 times the pay. All out of our pocket.
It’s not my way, it’s the what the Iraqi and American people, our military and the rest of the world wants. You apparently think a Bush veto will result in some great political victory for him and his party. Wrecking the US military faster and fighting a losing war out to the bitter end isn’t going to result in a poltical victory.
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. But hwat can you expect from a guy who thinks Algeria and Vietnam were successes for France and the US?
Yeah last year the Iraqi in charge of procurement for their DoD was complaining his forces were not being supplied with armor piercing projectiles. The insurgents have no armor. Coalition troops are the only forces who do in Iraq.
And since when does the DoD or anybody else in Bush’s government give a damn about laws or regulations? Regardless they have legal authority to shift billions around within the DoD budget and if they wanted to shut down the assembly lines for the F-22, the Osprey or the useless NMDS for the summer to fund the war the Dem congress would approve it in a day.
Translation: Slush fund to buy off tribal elders in hopes fewer people will take a few hundred bucks a pop to plant IEDs in order to feed their families.
Purely politically I might add. They know they’re going to get crushed in the next election if there isn’t way out of this war before next year and they’d rather have Bush
take the heat for his war than see a veto and filbuster proof majority of Dems in the Senate. Filibustering this bill like they did the non binding resolution would be suicidal.
Yeah just like you aren’t. He’s what a Libertarian? Anarchists with a 401K plan.
There’s no timeline, no exit policy, just ever shifting excuses to stay pretending that extending the occupation they hate will get Iraqis to be our allies when we leave. Knowing fiull well that’s impossible staying until a new president has to admit defeat has become the policy.
This is a waste of time. If I’m going to argue with wingnuts I think I’ll find some that at least know how to write and have some clue what they’re talking about.
Yes, they are looked on more favorably than they used to be. That you still don’t like them, or dislike them more doesn’t change that. There has actually been news stories about Eisenhower’s rehabilitation. I didn’t say it was deserved, I said it happened.
No i didn’t. You still seem more interested in attacking than reading or evaluating what is being said accurately. Re-read what I wrote.
As for your barrage against the three figures above, do you want me to start on the sins of Roosevelt, Carter, Clinton, Kennedy, etc. As for some of the whacked out conspiracy stuff, do I get to claim Roosevelt allowed Pearl harbor to happen? How about Clinton running drugs and murdering Vince Foster and that his Chinese fund raising shenanigans were actually because he was selling us out to the Chinese? Come on, now you are just getting weird on me.
Then leave, or barring that don’t throw out so many disconnected, false, unsupported statements, accusations and offensive characterizations to respond to. It is tiring for me as well.
Compared to previous ones? Whatever dude. I don’t assume conspiracies just because I have been lied to or I would have been with the black helicopter crowd in the ’90′s.
So, you think our soldiers now have it worse than in WWII to pick the obvious retort?
I am pretty close to done with you. If you believe that then you are so sorely ignorant that you should leave. I can promise you, if I talked to every Democrat out there with any knowledge of history they would turn red with embarrassment. Not because you are the most ignorant, but because you will not shut up. Never banned anyone before though I have almost done it twice. Once with the Muslim haters from LGF and the last time with the neo-nazi from Stormfront. You are actually more irritating.
As for me saying Vietnam or Algeria were successes, I never said that. Obviously you have a pretty blunt intellect. Either everything is a failure or a success. The constituent parts of something don’t even exist. I said the type of counterinsurgency techniques being applied in Iraq now were successful, not the wars themselves. That after all this time you can’t get the difference is just sad. You know nothing of the topics themselves since your only response has been that the French lost or some other such irrelevant to my argument response. I figured out a long time ago you have no actual knowledge of the Algerian conflict, which is fine. Just don’t act as if your ignorance is a virtue, and you should at least try and understand what the other person is saying. You seem incapable of either.
That is what is known in logic as a non sequiter.
The first sentence is yet another non sequiter, and the second false.
If you want to characterize it that way fine, but it is also the kind of thing the Democrats have said they want more of and the commanders on the ground say is very effective. Does it not work or get wasted some of the time? Yes. I suggest on that basis we shut down the whole government.
Everybody who doesn’t agree deserves an insult. Anarchists? Yeah, bains and Bakunin, quite a pair.
Don’t come back until you learn how to debate with something other than insults, bluster and crude reductionism.
Huh? The Pahlavi Dynasty was established in 1925. Iran was a constitutional monarchy for a little over a decade prior to that. What did Eisenhower have to do with any of that. Or, perhaps, you are referring to Operation Ajax? The definitive information on that top secret plan can be found here.
If so, you should mention that, not only was Mosaddegh a thief on the scale of Castro or Chavez, he actually hurt Iran pretty badly when he nationalized the oil industry and plunged Iran into the Abadan Crisis. Mossadegh was quite popular with the Iranian communists and islamists, which popularity who used to great effect in essentially completing a power grab somewhat reminiscent of Hitler’s in 1933:
In short, the “democratically elected” Mossadegh was not really so, and he was a communist dictator in the making. Arbenz was no better, although Somoza was no real prize either.
However, judging from your selective invection, I get the idea that you think the Cold War was a mistake? The advance of communism across the globe was just peachy with you?
The rest of your comment seems to be similarly misinformed, but I did want to address this:
I’m sure you thought that was clever, but it merely reveals how ignorant you really are. Also, has it occurred to you that, by the way you seem to define people’s preferences despite their true words and deeds, that you are creating a world of enemies for yourself? Why would you do that?
Try self-employed pal. If you have any intelligence behind all that vitriol, you’d recognize the implications therein.
I cut and pasted that
quote from your #57 post ya goofball.
I don’t know any liberals, progressives, leftists whatever who have changed their minds about Eisenhower and certainly not about Reagan, he rates down there just behind Nixon in my eyes. Ike wasn’t hated when he left office and nobody much cares about him now. He golfed a lot and left the dirty work to the crazy Dulles Bros. Reagan has always been a Repub icon. His rep was in the toilet when he left office but compared to the Bush’s he looks to Repubs like he belongs on Mt. Rushmore. Even a dummy looks goods next to two morons. Even though they renamed the airport in DC after him everybody still calls it National. Neither Eisenhower or Reagan has seen a national resurgence in their reps like, say Truman. As usual you’re confusing your daydreams with trends.
Wake up kid, those aren’t conspiracy theories, Reagan’s dirty little illegal wars, Iran Contra, the overthrow of democratically elected governments by the CIA are documented history.
And yet you argue that the same strategies and tactics that didn’t win those wars will win this one. Let me tell ya, winning hearts and minds, strategic hamlets etc. came way too late after too many search and destroy missions and free fire zones to win
hearts and minds in South Vietnam. Just as there’s been too many doors kicked in, too many promises broken, too many Abu Ghraibs (one was too much) to wish it all away in Iraq. They hate us. They hate our occupation. Over half of them, even when you factor in the Kurds, think killing Americans is justifiable. Take out the Kurds who live barricaded from the rest and are thrilled to have finally gotten their hands on the northern oil fields which they adamantly refuse to share and what do you have? A huge proportion of Arab Iraqis who’d like to see our soldiers dead.
MichaelW you seem as deluded as Lance. Mossadegh natonalized the oil industry for the benefit of the Iranian people. The Brits and BP wanted those profits. They asked Truman to help them get rid of him. He declined. When Ike came in he gave the Dulles Bros free rein and they agreed. Mossadegh was no crook and he sure as hell wasn’t a communist. That’s a fairy tail.
As for the cold war you don’t fight communism by overthrowing democratically elected governments and installing tinhorn dictators for the benefit of Western owned multinational corporations. You don’t train death squads at the School of Americas so the tinhorn dicactors have secret police forces every bit as bad as the KGB. We’re not supposed to be the bad guys. Our principles of democracy, freedom and regulated capitalism work well where we encourage them to flourish. Ask Europe. It’s what people have always liked and admired about the USA.
You also don’t fight radical Islam and promote democracy in the ME by trashing our consititution as Bush has done, invade Islamic countries like Iraq on false pretenses just as bin Laden predicted we would and occupy it indefinately while forcing them to sign exactly the kind of oil agreement Mossadegh tried to get rid of in Iran.
When we win it’s because of the example we set by adhering to those principles. Not by being more ruthless than commnunists, not by being more barbaric than terrorists.
You don’t fight fire with fire. You fight it with water.
We didn’t have to fire a shot when the Warsaw Pact and the USSR fell. That didn’t happen because Eastern Europeans were terrified of Star Wars or Reagan’s arms build up. It happened because their citizens compared their lives with Western Europeans’ and ours’. They saw peoples who had much higher standard of livings AND who could protest against their governments placing American missiles in their backyards without getting hauled off to a gulag for a the rest of their lives.
The implications of what bain? I’ve been self employed since 1982. Hasn’t made me decide our country would be better off without half it’s government.
I wasn’t referring to me.
You see, I am pointing out that the term liberal should apply to me, and people who call themselves liberals today are more accurately called leftists, progressives or something else. Technically I am the liberal, you are not. Sorry you didn’t get that, but if you were paying attention instead of ranting maybe you would have picked up that I am not a leftist nor would I ever characterize myself as such.
As for the rest, you still refuse to address the history we were discussing (because obviously you don’t know it) and make off topic unsupported rants. I have asked you to leave until you can do better, like read at least one good long article on counterinsurgency in Algeria. It is alright not to know something, to still disagree despite your lack of background. It is not alright to act as if you are some superior intellect when you don’t know what you are talking about. I may be wrong, but venomous spewings showing a serious lack of grounding in history doesn’t prove it.
I have asked you to leave. When you can come back and discuss things in some kind of spirit of goodwill and real debate do so. Until then stay away.
Yadda, yadda, yadda technically you’re a poor writer prone to flabby streams of consciousness who doesn’t bother to proofread, let alone edit your writing for clarity, factual errors or even common sense. I’d hate to see what your drivel would look like without a spellchecker. Your political and military acumen match your writing ability. Time and time again you state what are clearly opinions as fact. Your grasp of the most basic historic facts is not only deficient it’s wildly distorted. Ta ta Lance. It hasn’t been fun but like a bad car accident it’s been interesting to witness. Sometimes the carnage
is so spectacular you just have to stop and gawk for a bit.
That’s the second time you’ve said you’re leaving, yet you keep coming back to show your immaturity, flinging insults and proving unable to maintain a respectable debate.
We’d prefer one of two outcomes now, in this order,
1) That you stop insulting others and come back and take part in a mature debate.
2) That you actually do what you claim you are doing and leave.
Pingback: A Second Hand Conjecture » Democrats Continue To Stall Funding For Our Troops; Delay Comes At The Expense Of Training Iraqi Troops
That pretty much cuts it. If he comes back we are going to delete his comments. If he persists in this style of debate I’ll just ban him.
I can take insults toward me and my readers, but you have to be willing to give somewhere, and you need to have something to add, and it helps to have someone like Pogue who on his worst day is at least clever and often quite funny.
Rather than delete them, I’d showcase them. Make an instructive post out of them.
It must give you warm fuzzies knowing you can defeat all the agruments that no one has set forth.
I’d guess you’ve call options on wheat futures given how many strawmen you erect in your ‘arguments’.
They are not cheap points. It is the fundamental disagreement. A fundamental disagreement that could have been dealt with one way or the other weeks ago. He may win or lose, you know, democratically?
I don’t buy this. I don’t buy this it all. Moreover, it is precisely my point. George Bush gets to make deliberate acts that directly result in US troops not getting funding, when they otherwise would have. And you wave it off. But G*d forbid Democrats withhold funding for the mirror image reason. George Bush can halt funding to the troops because he thinks the war is right, and you don’t care. But if the Democrats halt funding to the troops because they think the war is wrong, well, then it’s open season.
I tell you what. I don’t know why this bill took so long to create. But I have a feeling that an awful lot of it boils down to Democrats arguing over what they were going to do when George Bush vetoes the bill.
Where will A Second Hand Conjecture be after Bush vetoes this funding bill? Are they going to create a 40 days, 80 days, 120 days timeline and post seven columns on troops suffering because of George Bush’s callous disregard for their welfare and the short-term success of their mission?
I fundamentally don’t believe that the mission in Iraq is being genuinely impacted by the war’s delays, but that could easily be a result of ignorance on my part. But it’s going to be impacted in an identical manner when Bush vetoes the withdrawal bill.
The Republicans purposely rolled over on the bill (and if you don’t believe it I have e-mails from before hand saying that was exactly the plan, and motive, from the senate) just to give it the chance to be decided one way or the other by the beginning of April. They told the Democratic leadership that was what they were going to do, but the Democratic leadership decided it would be better to wait and try and make Bush appear like the one who was delaying things. I am not letting that go by unnoticed.
Fine. But when Bush does the literally identical equivalent of what the Democrats are doing right now by vetoing the withdrawal/funding bill, you won’t be able to muster a tenth of the outrage. That’s manifestly obvious. Since you care about the troops ‘being hurt’ when Democrats deny funding, but not when Bush denies funding, I can’t take you seriously on the entire rest of your argument.
Well glas, I can speak for myself when I say I don’t blame the president for the troops not getting their funding because of a few reasons. One, the dems have used the funding to play political games. Two, they have used it to try to take away the president’s ability to be sole commander and chief. Three, they loaded it with pork spending. and lastly (I may be wrong on this) but I seem to remember congress not fully funding all the economic sections of the spending request.
I guess to make a bad analogy I would say it’s like ordering a cheese burger at a restaurant, and instead being served a chili burger with jalepenos. I don’t blame the patron for sending it back, I blame the waiter for brining the wrong order.
No glasnost. He could have vetoed it weeks ago. It was a deliberate choice to make him do it now. The fight was the same either way. Why are we doing it now instead of weeks ago? You know the answer.
Different issue, but yeah. I disagree with it. What am I supposed to say? I disagree, but I won’t argue why I disagree? Except no open season. I won’t claim they are doing anything that they are not doing. But I will say what they are doing, why I disagree with it, etc. That is a different issue than this. There is no military or legislative reason for the delay. It doesn’t matter what your position on the eventual outcome of the vote is, this is wrong. They are also not telling the truth or in the case of Reid he may just be going dotty. You can do the whole Brit Hume thing to me now, but read the nonsense he is spouting. Figure this out for me:
He’s the man on the ground there now. … I agree with General Petraeus. … …I stick with General Petraeus. … He’s the commander on the ground there.†– Reid on Gen. Petraeus, 4/23/07
* “I don’t believe him.†That is from the same interview glasnost! Then he claims all these things Petraeus has said which he didn’t. Add on the nonsense above.
Look, when it comes time for the vote you and I can go at each other hammer and tong. I will disagree vehemently. At least I understand it as an intellectual disagreement.
This I don’t get. They are just in the wrong. Isn’t this just the kind of thing we turned the Republicans out for? They are delaying something that didn’t need to be delayed, misled everybody the delays effect, just so they could put Bush in the position of denying needed funding to the troops. Those are the kind of political maneuvers that regardless of your position on what the bill should say you should oppose.
They either have the votes or not. Anyway, the veto will be done as soon as it is delivered to him. They could have a bill passed the next day without all the pork and the funding they asked for if the Democrats cooperate and don’t delay from there. Hardly equivalent to delaying this for two and a half months. 1 to 2 days versus 2 1/2 months. Not remotely comparable in my mind. My guess is they will delay it more. The idea is to paint it as his fault, and they want to make him do something from public pressure that they don’t have the votes to do. It won’t work, I think the Republicans will win that argument because the Democrats are even losing the press cover on this. The behavior has been too transparent. Hopefully I am wrong.
No, the bills were passed almost a month ago. The bills (because the House and Senate were slightly different needed to got to conference. Since the Republicans rolled and said it could be whatever they wanted to get it out the door it could have been done within a day. The Democrats decided to go on vacation. They wouldn’t even appoint conferees. Steny Hoyer admitted why they did it. This is not close. Why are you putting up with stuff we both raked the Republicans over the coals for just months ago?
It is the legislatures job to put together a bill that will survive his veto or that he will not veto. That is my position. They can fund the bill and try again next time if it is necessary because they don’t have the votes to get past his veto. My own guess is once the pork is pulled out, the present bill probably wouldn’t even get a simple majority. If they are right and the whole exercise is pointless and we need to withdraw then they can end it next vote. August 2008 is far enough out to get them another bite at the apple.
It is the legislatures job to put together a bill that will survive his veto or that he will not veto. That is my position. They can fund the bill and try again next time if it is necessary because they don’t have the votes to get past his veto.
No. If George Bush cares about the troops getting funding, it’s his job not to veto the bill.
Of course, sure, you can turn it around and say, if Democrats care about getting the troops funding, it’s their job to make a bill that GWB won’t veto.
But the argument is equally valid either way.
We’re still talking past each other.
The point is that Congress holding up the funding bill has the same effect on the troops as the President vetoing the funding bill. That’s as clear as I can make it.
Yes or no?
I’m not talking about your overall record on anything. I’m talking about, right now, right here, from Day 1 the President has announced his intention to deny funding to US troops by vetoing the funding bill, and you don’t care. You get very upset when Democrats stall funding, but the President can veto the funding with a free pass. You still can’t even seem to understand that – unless you’re prepared that stalling on funding hurts troops more than vetoing funding – which you have not made – that GWB and the Democratic Congress, vis-a-vis the troops, are doing the same thing
Listen:
vetoing funding = no money for troops
stalling funding = no money for troops
stalling funding = vetoing funding
How is this untrue? I’m still waiting.
Anyway, the veto will be done as soon as it is delivered to him. They could have a bill passed the next day without all the pork and the funding they asked for if the Democrats cooperate and don’t delay from there.
Why should they, Lance? What’s wrong with letting the bill stall for two months? Does it hurt the troops? I’m passing on that argument right now, so for the sake of argument, fine. It hurts the troops. Guess what! Vetoing the funding bill hurts the troops! The end result of both actions is the same – troops not getting their money! Why does George Bush have carte blanche to hurt the troops by vetoing a funding bill?????????
If George Bush is telegraphing that he’s willing to screw the troops over by vetoing their funding and then blame it on Democrats, why shouldn’t the Democrats play the same game?
Sure. You seem to be misreading what I am saying. My position is not that the fight is illegitimate, just delaying the damn thing six or more weeks and pretending delaying the fight wouldn’t have consequences was wrong. They have every right to fight it out. It should have been done at least sixty days ago.
Yes, but they could have done it sixty days ago and that was completely the Democratic leaderships choice. Bush couldn’t do anything about it. They thought it would pressure him to do something they couldn’t get the votes for. Fine (well not really, but lets move on) but then I get to do my best to put the pressure on them for having tried the tactic.
I won’t quote the rest of your argument, but his veto doesn’t delay things very long either. I am not galled about two or three day delays. So if he vetoes it and they go ahead and pass a bill (including one that sets a pullout date that has enough support to be veto proof) then that is fine, or would have been had they done it sixty days ago! I’ll be pissed about if they roll over tomorrow.
My guess is the Democrats will not go ahead and finish this up even after the veto. They will stretch it out weeks more. Bush isn’t driving this delay, veto’s are quick. The Democrats are controlling the calendar. They control whether something takes weeks/months vs. days. The possible variations on this bill are all available. Pass the one which gets the votes.
Not equivalent because of time. Two days is not two months. If his veto meant that it couldn’t be done for another two months I would feel differently. It would pretty much mean the end of the mission anyway. I would still blame them though, because the fight could have happened sixty days ago.
Bah. Congress has no obligation to send a funding bill quickly, or at all, if the President is going to veto the ones he gets. It may politically unwise not to send one, but morally, George Bush has already gone public to the effect of, “I don’t care if it endangers the troops, I prefer no funding at all to a funding bill with conditions I don’t like.” He’s already placed doing things his way over funding the troops, and then he expects Democrats not to follow his example.
By vetoing the bill, he eliminates funding. It ceases to exist. Then, by some twist of MSM magic, it becomes Congress’ obligation to clean up his mess and step in to, in effect, save the troops from his overwhelming spite by passing what the President wants. This is no fair scale where GW can play hostage with the troops by vetoing funding bills and it becomes high principles, but when the Democrats play hostage with the funding bill, it becomes cynical political manuvering. There is no tradition being broken, no laws being changed, no precedent-breaking manuever. There’s simply a game of chicken being played, and you grant the President the G*d-given right to play chicken with the troops but hold a microscope up to the other side.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
No, we just expect them to do it quickly. If he sat on the veto for weeks you might have a point.
Fine. But as I said time matters. If they feel it is worth it to them to not pass a funding bill unless it has the withdrawal dates, because they can’t get the votes to overcome the veto, then do that and say that. Be honest. They could have done that 60 days ago and the withdrawal would have already begun. Of course, that isn’t what they will do. They will pass a funding bill that they could have passed 60 days ago.
If they were really serious about this, as you seem convinced they are, they would say, “veto it and we will just refuse to fund them at all.” I’ll complain and criticize, but at least they will have stood up and taken the criticism as opposed to lying and misleading. Once again, it should have been done sixty days ago, but better late than never to start being straighforward about this.
Oh, and the reason they don’t want to do what you feel they are really up to, is that they don’t want a withdrawal now, as I point out in my post on Feingold.
Pingback: A Second Hand Conjecture » Galula, Anbar and Counter insurgency from the eyes of a Marine
Oh, and the reason they don’t want to do what you feel they are really up to, is that they don’t want a withdrawal now, as I point out in my post on Feingold.
I read the post on Feingold, and he’s one of my favorite Democrats, as well. But the underlying thing revealed by the lack of similar decisiveness among Democrats isn’t proof that they don’t really want a withdrawal. It’s that they want a withdrawal, but they also want to, as much as possible, meet people with whom they disagree with completely, halfway.
Or, I suppose, it’s possible that they have mixed feelings and want to hedge their bets and satisfy their constituents while minimizing the extent to which people who disagree with them get angry.
It’s the same reason why GWB is running around saying “we’re going to work with Democrats” on the next bill, while the other side of his mouth has been saying “no chance, pal, we’re not giving an inch”, on all the things that they want him to work with them on.
It doesn’t make for anything as inspiring as Feingold. It’s just the typical politician way of settling for 66% of a solution. Withdrawal in 2008 is there because people are telling them that withdrawal right now is too radical. It’s also a way of attempting to make concessions to what they may see as genuine concern for the possibility of genuine downsides to withdrawal.
The funding thing is the same. No one sees any difference between a funding bill, a veto, and then a long delay as a second bill is argued about, or a long delay… and then a funding bill and then a veto. The second one is what they did. I assume they thought it was politically safer.
I meant by that that they don’t know the right course, but they want to appease their base and not have the disaster, if there is one, become something people like myself will pin on them at least partial responsibility for before the election. Call me cynical, but that is what I see in every action they have made. Hey, the Republicans have the easy job here, which I know I pointed out, and McQ did as well, both before and immediately after the election. We saw their confusion coming because they had no coherent narrative. As I said in my post today, I can claim prescience on this as well. It is almost as if they handed me the script it was so predictable. Rarely are things truly predictable, though people act as if they are (including in Iraq.) This might be one of those rare instances where it was.
True, they all do that.
You can believe that if you want, but I have written post after post looking at this over the last six months, and everything they do fits with my thesis. The date is perfect for what I am suggesting. They aren’t doing it in May or after the election. It is right before. Perfect. But, assume Democrats are somehow more noble than that if you wish. Feingold knows better.