Thursday, January 04, 2007



While Lieberman and McCain are on the warpath trying to drum up support for Bush's big escalation move next week, who do we have to count on in the House to put on the brakes? Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer? I don't think so. But John Murtha isn't sitting still. This morning the Huffington Post reported that any money Bush requests for escalation or for McCain's idiotic surge doctrine should be voted on as a supplemental request for funds, a completely separate item (probably dooming it since even Republicans and the most cowardly Democrats don't want to be pinned down by directly voting to escalate the war).

The only way to stop Bush is with Congress' control over the purse-strings. Murtha's planning on using that power. He's the new Chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Committee. "The only way you can have a troop surge is to extend the tours of people whose tours have already been extended, or to send back people who have just gotten back home.... with Bush anything is possible. Money is the only way we can stop it for sure." He wants to "fence the funding," denying Bush the resources to escalate.

Expect right wing hacks like McCain, Lieberman, Hannity, Limbaugh... the whole grotesque menagerie to ramp up attacks on Murtha over the next few days.


I guess we'll see next week which members of Congress forfeit their right to be called Democrats (the way Holy Joe Lieberman has) but while Russ Feingold, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden have come out unequivically against the surge bullshit, a number of the usual suspects are hedging their bets. But above and beyond the Mary Landrieus, Ben and Bill Nelsons, the Baucuses and Blanche Linolns we also have potential for trouble from Reid, Levin and-- as though she wants to get her presidential chances ruined right up front so she doesn't have to bother thinking about them again-- Hillary Clinton. These are the tone-deaf imbeciles who are clueless about the rage building in the country against Washington. No politician, particularly no Democratic politician-- will survive supporting escalation; and calling it part of a "larger plan" that includes some nebulous promise to bring the troops home post-surge isn't going to fool anyone.


At 6:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

and calling it part of a "larger plan" that includes some nebulous promise to bring the troops home post-surge isn't going to fool anyone.

I hate to disagree with you, but I think that the Dems need people like Reid to be talking about "contingent" support for a "surge" if its accompanied by a timetable for withdrawal.

Now, of course, the surge will be a failure, and the timetable won't be carried out --- but by making Bush set goals that he can't meet, the Dems come out ahead.

The Dems cannot yet simply "defund" the war, so the key is to ensure that there are a handful of Democratic votes in both houses that will ensure the war continues to be funded IF there is overwhelming GOP support. The Democratic Party leadership has to emphasize that this the Party is not leaving it up to the conscience of each Democratic Congresscritter.

There are enough Republicans up for re-election who are scared to death of Iraq that insistence upon a "timetable" as a "bipartisan" compromise could force Bush into a corner -- and ensure that the Democrats retain control of Congress in 2008.

At 11:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would imagine that now that Bush has changed the generals, or plans to that no one will be talking to John Murtha.

Who knows, it is definitely down the rabbit hole now.


Post a Comment

<< Home