Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 996 Editor's Choice: 2
-
snap out of it
[Read the article: The risks of staying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree completely with both Glenn Greenwald and Atrios, but it isn't in Congress' power to really end our involvement in Iraq and bring the troops home. Only the incompetent, conniving Bush administration can actually do that, even if the funds were cut off tomorrow.
I've noticed a significant uptick of these sorts of sentiments recently. It's as if, when the Democrats abandoned their efforts to attach mandatory timelines to the recent appropriation, some people took this as an indictment on the institutional power of the Congress itself. I want to disabuse all of these people of their rather depressing beliefs. If the Congress chose to (a separate question), it could put into its next military appropriation or "supplemental" a clause declaring that none of the moneys appropriated could be used for the conflict in Iraq beyond a date certain (perhaps with an exception for completing withdrawal of any remaining troops).
This provision would, of course, have to survive the inevitable Bush veto, so it would need a 2/3 majority in both houses. Nevertheless, if the provision passed, and if Bush were to redirect funds in some way around such a restriction, this would amount to a usurpation of Article I power of a scale and type thus far unseen in this administration. With the war being as unpopular as it is, to think that the administration could continue on that path without serious consequences (impeachment or threat of impeachment) is to ascribe omnipotent power to the administration that I hope we would all agree was significantly belied by the last midterm elections.
Really, there is acknowledging "reality" as we see it, and being honest about challenges we face, and then there is simple, unmitigated defeatism. I wish more people would choose the former.
...the slavering attack dogs of right-wing punditocracy as "proof" that Democrats hate our military and cannot be trusted on national defense? We should know that there is no level below which they are willing to sink to destroy the Democratic Party.
This is the type of thinking that caused the weak-kneed Democrats in Congress recently to fold on their mandatory timelines -- the reflexive belief that whatever disgusting and utterly dishonest attack with which the Republicans respond will surely win over anything the Democrats say. Look, if people want to continue thinking Karl Rove controls the movement of the firmament and directs the thoughts of the public with a crystal ball clutched in his hands, so be it. But just know that this is a convenient pretext for throwing in the towel when there is still a significant amount of fight left to be had, and the opponent is most likely weaker than he seems.
We need more Russ Feingolds. Every time he speaks, I find myself struck by amazement that more Democrats cannot bring themselves to understand how genuine, simple, and direct their principles and arguments could be.
-
springy
[Read the article: The risks of staying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Democrats need to hammer the Republicans. The electorate doesn't like the war. So the Democrats calculate that withdrawal will help them win next year. Perhaps you should make up your mind by thinking about the conditions on the ground?
Do not assume that we share neoconservatives' (your?) apparent fixation on seizing and maintaining power at all costs, regardless of facts and logic.
Besides, you've got it quite wrong. The Democratic consulting class, for the most part, calculate that heavily criticizing the occupation without doing anything to ensure withdrawal is the path to further electoral victories. The principled Democratic position is to acknowledge the worsening of the situation in Iraq, the massive costs in blood and treasure, the enormous risk of wider war in the region, etc. and say enough is enough.
-
ggrazevich
[Read the article: The risks of staying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My point was just that even if they did [defund the war] (and Glenn's post about the absurd myths surrounding defunding shows the right way to do it), the Codpiece in Chief and his minions could not be trusted to get it right.
On this point, I tend to agree.