Friday, February 02, 2007



There's a battle raging among many of my friends-- all of whom are eager to see Bush's bloody and catastrophic occupation of Iraq ended asap. Some, like myself, would prefer a binding and non-symbolic resolution, more in line with the ones offered by Kennedy, Dodd, Feingold, Murtha and Woolsey that would start the process of actually ending the war by reining in an out of control executive. Others make a good argument that this bipartisan approach, though weak, is the best we could hope for in the conservative, hidebound Senate and that it's only a first step in a long process. I worry about the "long" and about how many more people have to die while this kabuki dance gets played out... not to mention the increasing probability that Bush and Cheney will get their dream of war with Iran by provoking an action they can make a case for responding to-- the way Hitler did with Poland in 1939.

This is the MoveOn statement supporting the Warner-Levin resolution:
We are pleased the Senate is headed to a bipartisan vote disagreeing with President Bush's escalation in Iraq. This is an important first step towards Congress blocking the escalation and stopping the war.

The compromise language would not constrain the Congress from using all of its powers to stop the escalation and force President Bush to implement an exit plan. The "power of the purse" has been wrongly caricatured as "cutting off the troops." That has never happened in U.S. history nor should it. However, Congress has several times used its powers to stop a president's use of military force.

If, after the vote, the president fails to respond to the will of a bipartisan majority in Congress, the American people and the Iraq Study Group then the Congress must without hesitation use all of its powers to stop President Bush and get America out of Iraq.

Opposition is a good first step but Congress must stop President Bush.

Yesterday far right fanatic Jon Kyl, who goes considerably beyond "conservative" or "hidebound," was on the warpath (along with other extremists like DeMint, Cornyn, Lieberman and McCain) doing their best worst to undermine the compromise bill. Kyl was on Fox reading discredited Rove talking points: "I haven't read the exact language," he admitted, "but I suspect that the exact wording matters less than the headline on Fox News the next morning or on newspapers all around the world, which will be something like 'Senate Rebukes President's Mission In Iraq.' ...That's the message that will be sent to our allies, to our enemies and to our soldiers."

Failing with that line, Rove is trying something completely different. The Bush propaganda rag run by the Moonies, had an interesting headline this morning: Majority in Senate support 'stay the course' resolution. The headline, like most of what comes from Rove, is meant to mislead and obfuscate. In this case they're trying to put lipstick on a dead pig before they're forced to kiss it. "A bipartisan majority in the Senate yesterday united behind a firm 'stay the course' resolution on the war in Iraq, despite searing public criticism from both sides in Congress over President Bush's handling of the war." I doubt you could find even one supporter of the Warner-Levin resolution who would agree with that assessment or who wouldn't recoil in horror from association with "stay the course" as a policy or, worse yet, a political image.

The Moonies' interpretation of the resolution shows that reading comprehension isn't a priority in Moonie schools-- either than or that they're happy hiring children who have been left behind as "journalists," or whatever propaganda writers are called in Moonieland. Charlie Hunt, the Moonie propagandist, claims the bill promises the Senate will not cut off funding for Bush's war. It does no such thing. It simply re-iterates the obvious-- that no one wants to cut off support from our troops in the field. The idea, at least among those seriously interested in using the incrementalist approach to ending the war, is to pass this mild rebuke of Bush and then take further actions if he rejects this. Cutting off the troops funds is never going to happen. Cutting off funds for sending new troops to Iraq probably will.

Kyl, a well-known dunce who won't have to face Arizona voters again for over 5 years, has a one track mind and he was babbling the same nonsense to the Moonies than he was spitting out on Fox. "'Approval of the resolution will have no real effect on war policy because it's nonbinding,' said Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, adding that its criticism of the administration's policy serves only to undermine the war effort. 'We are not simply speaking to the president,' Mr. Kyl said. 'Everyone else in the world will get that message... Those are the words that will resonate around the world.'"


At 11:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, Hillary was arguing strongly that we must be realistic about what can be achieved, that the coalitions must be formed for action.

Again, she insists this is the most they can do.

I am in your camp. I believe we need more, but am willing to see if the combination of the NIE report and the Libby trial and the information about Roberts blocking intelligence and intelligence fixing brings it all into a new light.

And, with Bush asking for twice what they anticipated it might bring this to a head that can be the last straw.


Post a Comment

<< Home