The war spending bill
I agree with Publius on this one. With all due respect to Sen. Feingold, Dems really had no where else to go, but to put to a vote support for endless war and more blank checks for Bush. Bush wanted a shutdown on war funding so that he could lay future blame on those who "didn't support the troops" and cut off funding just as the glorious surge would no doubt have mysteriously, inexplicably been just about to succeed.
Instead, they gave Bush his vote and his endless war will go on. And members of Congress will have to vote whether or not they support continuing his feckless, disastrous, and murderous war or not.
I'm looking at you, Chris Shays (R-CT).
One Democrat who is in a difficult spot is Hillary Clinton. She's been thinking about the big picture for quite a while, not wanting to set a precedent where Congress usurps presidential prerogatives that she intends to hold before too long. How she votes will be interesting.
I don't mean to be cynical. I realize young American men and Iraqis of all ages and genders are dying and our presence in the country is the main reason for that. But the truth is, as Publius pointed out, this war is not going to end while the 43rd president continues to hold office. Setting the stage for 2008 is the goal here and this vote is a very good way to isolate Republicans in contestable races. Are they "pro-Bush" and blank checks, or are they against a war the vast majority of Americans have come to regret and want ended.
However, one thing is important. I've already seen press reports framing the feeble benchmarks that are in the bill as "a GOP idea." That must be shot down. If not for Democrats initiating this showdown, there would be no accountability at all.
Dems should also not allow the press to label them as "split" or "disheartened" by this either. They showed spine and forced concessions from this most inflexible of presidents. The fact that some want an end to the war now and others are concerned about abandoning Iraq too quickly is not something to be embarrassed by. It's the same conflict felt by most Americans.
Instead, they gave Bush his vote and his endless war will go on. And members of Congress will have to vote whether or not they support continuing his feckless, disastrous, and murderous war or not.
I'm looking at you, Chris Shays (R-CT).
One Democrat who is in a difficult spot is Hillary Clinton. She's been thinking about the big picture for quite a while, not wanting to set a precedent where Congress usurps presidential prerogatives that she intends to hold before too long. How she votes will be interesting.
I don't mean to be cynical. I realize young American men and Iraqis of all ages and genders are dying and our presence in the country is the main reason for that. But the truth is, as Publius pointed out, this war is not going to end while the 43rd president continues to hold office. Setting the stage for 2008 is the goal here and this vote is a very good way to isolate Republicans in contestable races. Are they "pro-Bush" and blank checks, or are they against a war the vast majority of Americans have come to regret and want ended.
However, one thing is important. I've already seen press reports framing the feeble benchmarks that are in the bill as "a GOP idea." That must be shot down. If not for Democrats initiating this showdown, there would be no accountability at all.
Dems should also not allow the press to label them as "split" or "disheartened" by this either. They showed spine and forced concessions from this most inflexible of presidents. The fact that some want an end to the war now and others are concerned about abandoning Iraq too quickly is not something to be embarrassed by. It's the same conflict felt by most Americans.
posted by John at 5:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home