Larry Craig Blames the Press. Let me get this straight. Larry Craig is blaming the Idaho Statesman for his guilty plea for lewd behavior in the Minneapolis airport. He might have done better if he'd just called his behavior "Western friendliness" or having a "special privacy rituals."
Craig and the Surge. Depending on how many other prominent Republicans get caught in "moral turpitude," the Larry Craig scandal won't have much of an impact by the time the general election campaign heats up in 2008. But it's still important. Craig's arrest and guilty plea has completely killled the momentum of the "Save the Surge" campaign by President Bush and the right. The reaction to last week's Vietnam analogy speech by President Bush was "electric" among conservatives. Today, Republicans like Scott Reed are despondent. Again.
Why is Bush Working So Hard to Save the Surge? It's not like the Republicans have to fight that hard to maintain American troop levels in Iraq at 160,000 through spring and summer 2008 anyway. President Bush can still veto any appropriation legislation that gives him anything besides "no strings" funding on the war in Iraq. Likewise, it's clear that Republicans in Congress would support Bush in any veto showdown and that Democrats have no stomach for a long showdown with the White House headed into 2008.
In other words, it looks like Bush has already won the September battle over Iraq. So why is he taking so much time out of his daily exercise routine to travel around the country giving speeches in support of the surge?
My Guess is that the White House is either aware of some news or some potential Democratic strategy that would be a threat to the surge policy or that President Bush is just trying to rally the Republican base so that Congressional Republicans won't be so skittish in September. If it's the latter, Larry Craig has made things a lot more difficult for the President. Right now, the only way to drive the Craig scandal out of the media would be for Craig to resign quickly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Or, an alternative question would be why are you so heavily invested in the failure of the surge?
I guess Al-Sadr's announcement to his followers was just an accident, no?
President Bush can still veto any appropriation legislation that gives him anything besides "no strings" funding on the war in Iraq.
Which works only if the dems are just trying to attach strings to money they are approving for operations. If they don't pass legislation authorizing funds, there is nothing for Bush to veto, and no money to spend. The house, and by extension, the dems are in charge of funding this thing regardless of Bush's position.
So why is he taking so much time out of his daily exercise routine to travel around the country giving speeches in support of the surge?
Maybe he finally realized that part of making a policy successful is a coherent, persistent effort to communicate with the rest of us Joes. 6 years in, but better late than never.
EF is right.
Harry Reid's absurd excuses notwithstanding, the Democrats have no obligation to rubber stamp George Bush's war budget. If Bush vetoes the bill, he vetoes his money. Democrats in Congress won't get any respect from this president unless they stand their ground.
If they capitulate again, they'll see a backlash they can't believe. They were elected to end this war, not to whine about it.
The Democrats control both Houses of Congress. They have the ability to force the issue in voting to de-fund the war. Their failure to do so is either a sign that they know this is not what the majority of the public would want, their lack of political will, or that their campaign rhetoric was just that, rhetoric.
Another option is that it is not a failure but a choice to not de-fund the war. Defunding it would remove one big stick they can use to beat the repubs over with.
Just silliness. First of all, Ric, you are right that the Pres has already won the September battle. By acquiescing to the ridiculous notion that "the surge" has anything to do with Anbar, Dems are signaling their intent to buckle.
As for Congress's job, the commenters here are just plain nuts. The Democrats cannot de-fund soldiers in harm's way for political AND moral reasons. Politically, why would the Dem want to hand JD and ef anymore propaganda to attack them as being anti-military (a charge which never ceases to baffle me: Dems to tropps: "we'd like to keep out of Iraq where people try to kill and maim you." Reps: "We'd like to send to a vast sandbox, where no one who's who and you might be killed or maimed." Conclusion resulting from that is NOT Republicans favor the troops).
Morally, it's as irresponsible as the original Rumsfeld/Bush decision to send them their sans armored vehicles and body armor to then not fund their withdrawal. If you cannot just fun a withdrawal and your two options are the ones presented as a) leave them stranded, or b) leave them fighting, then b is the only realistic choice.
There are two notes. First of all, JD and ef know that's true, but will immorally and disingenuously claim otherwise.
The second point is to refute JD's allegation (repeated with a Hannity-esque frequency) that the Dems "control" congress. They do not control the Senate. As a matter of fact there are 49 Democrats in the US Senate, not 51. The Democrats can organize the Senate, but they no more control it than JD controls the booting of trolls off of Protein Wisdom (is "two" the tally for today's dissenters that have been banned for disagreeing with the host or will their be more? Castro wishes he had that sort of control).
So, please peddle your Dems can de-fund the war any time bull somewhere else, because I am liberal, I vote Democratic (except for Sen Lugar, who's a good guy). I opposed the war before it started. I have opposed it everyday since and would like to see s redeployment. Yet, if I were a Congressman, the option I would be least likely to vote for is your silly de-fund option.
Partisan emplying the language of Rove and Gingrich = hacks
Why is that so preposterous, timmah? They have threatened to do so before, and did so in Viet Nam.
If the Dems do not control the House and Senate, who does?
timmah - Why don't we just go and ask the military which party they thinks supports them more.
#1) shockingly, you are incorrect. The Democratic Congress in 1974, after US troops withdrew, cut funding to the South Vietnamese and refused to fund "stability operations" (i.e. U.S. air strikes) in 1975. They did not de-fund American combat troops. Nice try, though.
#2) Maybe you've noticed that neither party controls the Congress. Dems control the House. Neither Party has control of the Senate, which is why the President can veto anything he doesn't like OR prevent it from coming to a vote (in fact, it's discussions like these which remind of how opposed to the filibuster the Republicans were just two years ago. My, times have changed.)
#3) okay. The latest polling data I could find was from 2006 and the headline is "U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006" But, you know best.
Lastly, Prossor Caric, if you're reading, the GAO came out with an exciting new study, showing the White House was, as most of us knew, fudging its benchmark numbers. The non-partisan GAO found only three of the eighteen benchmarks had been met, not 8!
Here's the link:http://www.washingtonpost.com
/wp-dyn/content/article/
2007/08/29/AR2007082902434.html
Save the Surge indeed.
My mistake. It is a distinction without a difference, given the resultant slaughter.
BBZZZZZZZZZZZ. Rep.Pelosi is Speaker and Sen. Reid is the Majority Leader. They run all committees with majorities, and determine scheduling and everything to do with the operations. You may not call that control, but you would be an idiot.
I am still opposed to the filibuster on advise and consent matters. Legislative matters, well that is up to the Senate. Wrong again, timb.
Timb - You answered a question not asked. I did not ask who wants the war to be over. Frankly, I am shocked that only 76% wanted it over. I asked which party the military favors, or feels that supports them the most.
If there is a difference between the report being written by the White House, per legislative directive, and the GAO, I am sure that will be addressed. You guys are practically hyperventilating over drafts of something that has not even happened yet.
BTW - How about Al Sadr's actions recently? What about the General interviewed about Basra?
I love how the Pentagon is a source of all TRUTH to you folks. Since the military is authoritative in these cases, I'll defer to my brother-in-law, who, unlike the general, served for a year in Basrah, and told me long ago that the South was entirely in Iranian and Shia militia hands.
He said the Brits had "turned security" over the Iraqis in at least two Eastern provinces, because they could not stop the militia. He told me about a Brit FOB in one of those provinces that was under such constant, if thankfully, non-lethal mortar fire that the Brtis decided to abandon it. In Basra they gathered the armor and APC's need to cover their retrieval of equipment. They returned 2 days after leaving and the entire place had been looted to the foundations. Every item, every light bulb, every piece of wood, everything had been taken by the militias.
I'll take that Pentagon report over some General lying to Hugh Hewitt any day of the week, seeing as how it is consistent with press reports.
Then again, I almost always doubt what my government says, because I am not an authoritarian. You are.
PS Thanks for the ad hominem, but I already said all the Dems can do is organize the joint. They aren't even a majority. You can go ask the ghost of Lyndon Johnson, Strom Thurmond, or Bob Taft if 49 votes in the Senate means you "control" the place.
Or, you can ask noted Senate staffer Dan Collins.
The General was lying? Prove it. Both of my brothers were in Basra for a combined 4 years, and their experiences differed from that of your brother-in-law. Maybe it was the time frame.
You are willing to accept the word of the government when it fits your narrative, based on a leaked report from an anonymous staffer at the GAO, and are unwilling to belive Gen. Petraeus or people with actual real-time experience?
Then again, I almost always doubt what my government says, because I am not an authoritarian. You are.
Au contrare. You are more than willing to accept that which you want to believe, and ignore that which is not convenient.
If the Dems do not control the House and Senate, then we would like them back. I really cannot believe you are arguing that point.
Well, read it again, I said Dems control the House.
My brother-in-law returned in 1/07.
As to the first point, I specifically cited the Pentagon. I definitively distrust anything Generals say (doesn't mean they're lying, just that they are prone to the foibles of any public figure). I certainly do trust the GAO and generally the CBO. I tend to also trust IG's. But that's the contrarian in me. Plus, I tend to offer far more credibility to reports that gibe with reality, rather than the Five O'clock funnies.
So your fellow travelers were simply throwing shite against the wall when they were complaining that President Bush does not listen to the Generals?
Why would you believe a desk jockey staffer at GAO or the CBO over people with actual real world and real time experience with the topic? It is simply because they are more prone to take policy positions that you agree with?
There is no difference here, JD. you're listening to a guy sitting at a desk in Baghdad with a partisan dog in the fight (not a partisan party dog, but a vested interest in spin dog).
Since the GAO report matches what's on the ground and the report of the Washington Post's journalists in Basra (not at the Green Zone) match what I've already heard about the ground, I'm inclined to give more weight to the journalists.
"The first causality in war is truth"
Whereas, if I were President, I would trust Generals to tell me what they can do and how they can do it, I, as a citizen, know that generals throughout history exaggerate. It's what they do.
You can learn all the lessons from 'Nam all over again re: what the military tells the press. For me, I'll go watch We Were Young Once and remember that in Saigon and Washington, they called that battle (a massed formation battle) a "skirmish".
Why, counselor, do you believe everything Generals tell you?
Because in my experience, I am far more likely to get the truth from the US military than I am from the US media. There are exceptions, sure.
I know you refused to this on PW, but, if I post this link from the Washington Post is there any chance you'll look at it. It's about how choreographed Congressmen's trips to Iraq are. One of the sources is Jim Moran and I know, as a good conservative, you loathe Baghdad Jim, but he's only one source (backed by independent confirmation). If you think the military is not serving General Patraeus's interest in appearing to succeed, the Pentagon's desire to manipulate the public, and the administration's desire to keep R's in line, then you are mistaken.
By the way, since you respect Gen Patraeus and get all excited when he's criticized, realize what I'm saying about him. His career, and possible future political career, is on the line here and he has a side to tell. Doesn't mean he's lying, he's just presenting his case. We have to respect that, don't we?
Post a Comment