It is clear (even to none too bright Bush) that 17,500 additional troops in Baghdad will not turn the tide. Bush is already set to blame Maliki who can be as easily uninstalled as he was installed as the U.S.-puppet if he doesn't jump high enough when Bush commands.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds. Bush lied about the pretexts for war, lied about the progress of the war, and continues to lie to this day about the projected costs of this war over the next two years and beyond. Bush is nothing if not a lying machine.
The Republic War Party had its lunch handed to it last November 7th. Now the self-declared "Wartime President", Commander-in-Chief, and supreme Unitary Executive says he does have to pay attention to the will of the people because he is The Decider. Repugs try to put the onus on Democrats (and they do share blame for getting suckered by Bush into authorizing him to use force against Saddam "as a last resort" to "strengthen Bush's hand at the diplomacy table"). What a pathetic joke! What a horrendous mess. It will only get worse until the U.S. leaves Iraq lock, stock, and barrel.
So surge this, George buddy, surge this! I say take up Cheney's, Cornyn's, and all the other warmongers challenge and vote to cut off funding for this abomination of a war. We need to "get the job done" and end this war in Iraq by taking our money back from Bush and Cheney. It is called exercising the power of the elected democratic majority. It is called being responsible. It is called leadership. End this war NOW. No surge. No mas. No excuses.
Bloggers, TV talking heads, and radio pundits who want to analyse the parliamentary strategy behind the failed vote of no confidence in the Senate need to stop the blithering and demand an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The time for talk and debate are long over. It is time to put into action a plan get out of Iraq forthwith. Analyze that.
The War To Save The Surge
quote:--------------------
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
The Washington Post
Tuesday, February 6, 2007; A17
When political opponents tell you that to prove your seriousness you need to pursue a strategy they know is doomed to failure, shouldn't you be skeptical of their advice?
As the Senate considers a resolution to put itself on record opposing President Bush's escalation of the Iraq war through a "surge" of troops, Bush's backers are saying one thing and doing another.
They are saying that the resolution is meaningless and that true opponents of the war should prove their sincerity by cutting off funding altogether. But they are doing all they can to keep the Senate from even voting on a bipartisan anti-surge resolution that would send a powerful message to Bush that most Americans have lost faith in his bungled war policy.
If you doubt that the war's supporters would love its opponents to put all their eggs in the fund-cutoff basket, consider what it means for them to sound as if the administration's only serious foes were the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Cindy Sheehan.
"I don't think these resolutions, nonbinding resolutions, are going to accomplish anything," Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican and a Bush loyalist, told Gwen Ifill on PBS's "NewsHour" last week. "If we really had the courage of our convictions," Cornyn said, the "we" referring to the war's opponents, "if people said, 'You know what? This is an immoral task we've asked our troops to do because we don't believe in the mission, we think they're going to fail.' They ought to cut off funds. But to have this sort of -- this debate without any real consequence, I just don't think is the best use of our time."
So Cornyn wants to block a vote on a supposedly unimportant anti-surge resolution, but he would be happy to entertain a debate on a funding cutoff. Does that not send a message to the war's critics?
And it's not just Cornyn. It is now a standard talking point for supporters of this war, from the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard to Vice President Cheney himself, to try to block any statement by Congress of its views, except through a vote to block funds for Iraq.
"The Congress has control over the purse strings," said Cheney, who on most other occasions insists upon the executive's supremacy over Congress. In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer last month, Cheney added: "They have the right, obviously, if they want to cut off funding, but in terms of this effort the president has made his decision. . . . We'll continue to consult with the Congress. But the fact of the matter is, we need to get the job done."
~~~snip~~~
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war
No comments:
Post a Comment