Letters to the Editor
-
I don't understand
When the President veto'ed the previous funding bill, wasn't he the one defunding the troops?
Why isn't Congress sending the President funding bill after funding bill with timelines until he realizes that is the only way for his war to be funded?
-
Political Theater
The Democrats knew all along they didn't have the votes to override a veto, so to cave in now makes the whole previous spectacle just a waste of time, unless they all plan to vote against the bill itself. It's like the "victory" the Democrats were claiming during the Supreme Court nominations when they saved the ability to filibuster by agreeing to not filibuster.
-
Spin it hard
As we have seen over the last six years, if the Democrats can spin it loud enough, long enough, and hard enough that this is a victory for them, voters will believe it. The substance, the reality, the truth of it means absolutely nothing. All that matters is the image. I'd like to think it was different in some hazy nostalgic past, but I believe it was ever thus. There's a sucker born every minute, let's grab the suckers now and worry about consequences later, it's the way of the world.
-
The answer is no
They can't spin it to look like anything other than letting down the American people, the troops, the Iraqis -- everyone except BushCo, who are running around the oval office crowing and making Monty Pythonesque "rude noises" as we speak.
-
how many people...
...with children in Iraq voted for Bush? Both times? How many? A plurality? A majority? What do you think, Joan?
Elections have consequences. Bush put their children in harm's way. For his own domestic political gain. Period. They can't blame the Dems for that. I do not feel sorry for these people. If all the people who have family members in Iraq had voted for Kerry in 2004, those family members would probably be home now, or close to it.
More and more, I am, reluctantly, but perforce, trusting the Dems to do the right thing. The right thing means crushing the GOP for a generation. Nothing more, nothing less. I hope that's their goal. Because rolling over for Bush at this point is worth nothing less than that.
The GOP is clearly a menace to our country. They need to be permanently marginalized. If the Dems play their cards right, and keep methodically investigating the Administration, while tying this war as tightly as possible around Bush's neck, the GOP may turn into a regional party, and until they transform utterly, and renounce their fascist right-wing (fascist is *exactly* the correct word, btw), that's where I want them to be. Marginalized. Regional. Powerless on the national scene.
If the Dems can do that, I'll forgive them just about anything.
-
Needed...a GPS for WashDC politics...where are the DC DEMS? where is any truth to be found?
Since the November 2006 election the Bush2WH(or is it the Dick Cheney WH?) has been able to push aside ISG guidance, initiate a "new surge into Iraq" thrust and now despite the November 2006 election results clearly is sending signals that the Iraq Occupation and Oil Grab is fully operational and on track to stay that way quite likely well into 2008. What is it about American elections that empowers very marginal "winners" such as G.W.Bush in 2000 to exercise full political power in WashDC yet proscribes the DC DEMS from similar powerplay now?
Furthermore isn't it about time WashDC fully disclosed what the "agreed upons" are for a long term American presence in Iraq with those super-bases and the imperial embassy being put up in Baghdad? Or how is it seen as aiding American credibility in ME to be unleashing the CIA on Iran or aiding/abetting the Israeli's ongoing brutal police state operations in Gaza and the West Bank? Or having supported and allowed Israel to ruthlessly attack and destabilize Lebanon during summer of 2006?
If the Iraqis vote that all Americans will be leaving Iraq will that vote be honored in WashDC? The DC DEMS are going to have to stand and fight sooner or later and clearly reveal what makes them better or at least different from the GOP and Bush/Cheney regime. By allowing the Bush2WH/DC GOP to dictate issues framing,terms of engagement and rules of the political road the DC DEMS are not following the spirit of November 2006 election results.Is this a failure of political know-how or due to spinelessness and terminal risk aversion desires? If the WashDC consensus is going to be Americans will be in Iraq for decades to come, Americans will orchestrate a Iraqi puppet government and be seriously meddling in Iran and helping Israel wipe-out or wipe-away the Palestinians...then just come out and say as much. Because that seems to be where the United States is at or is heading in Iraq,Iran and Israel as of late May 2007.
-
More Iraq war funding
Editor,
I am tired. It is getting so I can't tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans in the end. You've heard the phrase "War is a Racket". Well it is and too many companies are profiteering from putting my son's life in harms way, a second time. Bush's presidency is a marriage gone bad, why not try impeachment. Not one Democrat will be re-elected if they don't stand up to Bush, I will certainly not vote for them.
-
Simple question for Joan
Why do you think this is a war? Why do you keep saying it is?
In war, the problem is to find the enemy and defeat the enemy before they defeat you. So who are we supposed to defeat in Iraq?
The insurgents are far too nebulous to constitute an 'enemy.' There's no leader of the insurgents that we can crush or negotiate with to make the insurgents stop what they are doing. Every time we take down an insurgent, we probably create a dozen new insurgents to take his place--mainly his relatives. The insurgents are basically freelancers and are in no real way organized or necessarily linked together. So how do we defeat that?
Futhermore, there's a three way circus going on in Iraq. The Sunnis insurgents are fighting the Shiite insurgents and the Kurds are mixed up in it too. Should we defeat the Sunnis, the Shiites, or the Kurds or all three or what? What is the combination that results in victory? And why would it be a victory?
The 'war' in Iraq simply isn't a war problem, it's a policing problem. The insurgents should ideally be treated as criminals, not as warriors; they need to be captured, prevented, identified, discouraged, punished, made to realize that insurgency is a dead end occupation. They shouldn't be elevated to the status of possible rulers of Iraq, which is what treating them as 'enemies' actually accomplishes.
Policing is how you promote security and order in a society. Warring is about breaking things and killing people. Warring is not what we are supposed to be doing in Iraq. Instead, we are supposed to be building a new nation.
However, we don't have enough troops on the ground to do any kind of serious policing in Iraq. And we probably never will, because the cost will just be too ruinous. Our troops are just running around from thing to thing, hoping that the Iraqis will eventually take over for us and solve our problems so that we can go away. But that's just not going to happen. The insurgents seem to have infiltrated the Iraqi army and government, a consequence of there not being any sort of order in the country.
'Cutting off the funding to stop the fighting in Iraq' is just not what it's about. What we should be discussing is how and whether we want to keep order in Iraq.
In fact it's not surprising to me that the Democrats would be reluctant to cut off funding. After all, even though the Democrats may like to say they are opposed to the 'war,' they have not in any way come out against providing security for Iraq. They still subscribe to the goal of building a nation in Iraq. So cutting off funding is a contradictory position for the Democrats, because they are not actually opposed to what the funding is for.
What the Democrats (and the country) are really against is the lack of progress in Iraq. The whole 'cutting off the funding' discussion is really just an evasion of the real issues, if you ask me.