« McCain's Poor Sense of Timing | Main | The Documents Not Turned Over »

April 26, 2007


McConnell on NPR/All Things this afternoon sounding tough and manly: Deadlines and timelines are surrender! Don't tell the 'enemy' our plans! 9/11! Al Qaeda is in Iraq! We've not been 'hit' since 9/11 because of the war! Beware! Fear the evil heathen monsters, they're coming here next if we 'surrender'! He doesn't see any compromise: What the president wants is what the president should get.

Meanwhile the news story at the top of the hour reminds us that the bill is meaningless because Bush will veto it. Guess nobody at NPR watched Moyers last night, but it would seem they did get today's memo.

Bush will ratchet up the rhetoric still more over the next two weeks, thinking it will cause the 'merican people to get behind him and his war on terra and stop the Dems in their cowardly tracks.

Fat chance. Bush, Rove, and Cheney (and McConnell) still don't get it: the party's over, the People have become the decider and they've made a decision, and endlessly repeated lies are not going to change their minds.

it is a triumph, indeed.

quite a remarkable one.

the solid, steady leadership of pelosi and reid are responsible for this achievement.

our nation has been well-served by those two leaders and by those of their colleagues who supported them.

in the end, though, congress and law won't be able to do what the nation needs.

it will be up to us ordinary folk to go into the streets and pull down the hollow statue/government of pres george w. bush.


Now what?

... and please don't bore me with the rhetoric about pulling down statues.

Well, resident troll, you could just stop reading and go away, if it bores you.

Rhetoric about pulling down statues isn't any worse than rhetoric about the Evil Terr'rists following us home from a war we had no business starting. It's better, in fact: it doesn't involve killing people and permanently wrecking their country.

When Busholini vetos the bill and repeats his request for a "clean bill", I hope the Dems send him one with no funding for Halliburton. That's what I call clean.

Frankly, I don't think Busholini is going to pack up his veto pen, short of the threat of impeachment. It's all well and good for Pelosi to say Bush is not King, but he may as well be if we say he won't be held asccountable. This is a Republic and Presidents serve at the pleasure of the people. Pelosi may not think Bush is worth the effort of imp;eachment proceedings, but our Constitution is worth it. George Bush is above the law with impeachment off the table.

One thing to remember as our solons blunder on is that they don't control events. Nor does Bush or even Cheney. The next time they try to pass war funding that Bush will accept, who knows what further collapse of U.S. control will have happened in Iraq. Reid was right: the US has lost this war. The rest is all just fidgeting until withdrawal is unavoidable. Meanwhile, they are all positioning themselves for the blame game.

And McCain skipped the vote.
Lyndsey Graham of SC also missed the vote.

And John McCain skipped the vote.
Lyndsey Graham of SC also missed the vote.

These facts keep getting left out of the MSM narrative.


Now what?"

McConnell and reid sit down and talk. A bill that funds the troops AND has something in it about withdrawal gets signed by bush and becomes law.

It then becomes as impossible for Bush and the GOP to go on about 'defeatism' nonsense and the dialog in the country changes for the better. OTOH, McConnell and Bush supporters are 'pinned down' and forced to defend Bush's increasingly unpalatable choices (Gonzales, the war, Katrina response, the unfolding Abramoff-Renzi-Doolittle-US attorney scandal etc).

Then comes 2008 and a 'change' election. There is not one item -not one- that the public thinks Bush is doing a good job on. The GOP is out and the country gets back to normal. Places like KY and TX see Bush in negative territory and will be congress competetive; the northeast and northwest are lost to the GOP for a generation.

As for Iraq, plans start being made for withdrawal if we are still there. Those plans (planning!) are currently being thwarted by the fellow in the Oval Office who can't stand to have his desires thwarted by grownups.

Indictments, I'm afraid, will have to wait until 2008.

So here is a question: What happens if Bush SIGNS the bill, and issues a statement saying that, in keeping with the concepts of the Unitary Executive, the executive branch will treat any provision limiting it's wartime powers as advisory only?

Lizard, I consider that the most likely outcome.

I think it is very likely, also. I have not seen any speculation on what a response to this might be. I think most people have the "he wouldn't dare!" reaction, but The Cult Of Bush has shown that they will dare to do almost anything. If Bush tries to persue a policy of 'war by signing statement' then impeachment is the only answer, because the only other option, litigation, takes too long, and THIS supreme court would dodge and refuse to address the issue, anyway. Bush's calculation will be that the Dems will not attempt to impeach him, so he can pretty much do whatever he wants. Sign and Ignore. Again.

McConnel sit down and talk, my ass. They still think they're in the catbird seat with this veto.

Call their bluff and let him veto once a day, every day.

Reid should call for a vote every single day until the cantankerous
man/child is recognized as the solitary reason the troops cannot be funded. And Kucinich is wrong about a lot of things, but when he says caving to the WH on this is like re-authorizing the Iraq war,
each time you vote HIS WAY OR THE HIGHWAY.

The Democrats should NEVER SEND ANOTHER SPENDING BILL for war in Iraq. No money, no war.

Bush can:

1. Bring our troops home, or
2. Let them die where they are (as he's been doing for years.)

If he chooses 2, impeach him.

I said it here a long time ago.

President might:
1. Veto (most probably the first time he sees it)
2. Sign a later version, with a signing declaration that mentions in some form the items in 4.
3. Let it by (probably not the first time, but later)and use 4. later.
4. On either one of 2 or 3, when the time comes, just ignore it, saying that as Commander in Chief with the safety of America and the Free World at stake, he must act reponsibly, and in the meanwhile sends a new bill to save us all to Congress.

Jodi @ 14:19


He isn't allowed to do this. Go read the Constitution again.

He is only CinC of the military. Go read the Constitution again.

And if you think anything the GOP wants will save us from the consequences of their actions, inactions, and non-actions, go look at the makeup of the current Congress.


that was a little tongue in cheek. Don't be so knee jerk.

Jodi - it's considered polite to tag it if you're trying to be tongue in cheek. But they probably don't teach that sort of thing in troll school these days.

P J,

well then instruct me how to tag oh Great Dark Lord. I am new at this blogging.

I just put it in bold.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad