SezMe
post-pre-born
Congress has passed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and it's on its way to a promised veto. This should make for some fascinating politics that will carry all the way into the heat of summer. Let's follow it here.
I guess we've been over this ground before, but the problem I've had from the get go was what defines victory - in concete terms.
Every business has to set goals, hell when I went to get a lousy $50000 business loan I had to write a mission statement and a business plan that spelled out how I planned to spend every red penny and how it was going to turn into profit and when.
While I can understand that we do not want to tell the enemy our plans,
could not the White house submit a plan to congress and the house secretly? Can someone shed some light on whether there is such a mechanism in place?
I doubt that congress could keep such a secret if it has political implications.
BTW, the latest poll says that 64% of Americans surveyed agree that "the United States should set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008" compared to 32% against (2:1 for a timetable).
In this recent poll of Iraqis, 70% favor a timetable for withdrawal of US forces, and 47% support attacks on US forces. 67% think security would increase if the US withdrew in 6 months.
So a timetable for withdrawal has wide support among both Americans and Iraqis.
The only reason Iraqi's think Americans should go is that they are getting in the way of their plans for domination of the country.
I disagree. Sectarian and ethnic loyalties are stronger than nationalism. When we leave, Iraq will evolve (greased with a lot of blood) into nearly completely isolated fiefdoms based on sectarian criteria.
That said, this thread is about USA politics revolving around the supplemental bill - it is not about Iraqi politics.
I wonder at the long name. Why not call it what it is?Congress has passed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and it's on its way to a promised veto. This should make for some fascinating politics that will carry all the way into the heat of summer. Let's follow it here.
That said, this thread is about USA politics revolving around the supplemental bill - it is not about Iraqi politics.
Sectarian and ethnic loyalties are stronger than nationalism. This doesn't mean that the various sects don't want domination of the country. If split into separate countries we would have a genocide on our hands. How would you even split a city as heterogeneous as Baghdad? It's not possible.
Congress likes giving bills long and complex names in an attempt to sound serious and sophisticated when in reality they're petty and ignorant.
I wonder at the long name. Why not call it what it is?
The War Chest.
I hate politics like this. The Democrats and Bush are engaged in a wrestling match over this funding bill and in the mean time they're causing the funds that would otherwise go to our troops to be held up.
Quixotic Democrats+Stubborn President=More dead troops.
![]()
Wrong. There is funding to last through June.
This back-and-forth is a farce. Everyone knows that the president will veto the bill because he can't be seen as losing face even if the time-line is non-binding. The end result will be the same as before. The president will get what he wants, and the carnage will continue.
The House last night pushed through its second plan to fund the Iraq war and reshape war policy, approving legislation that would provide partial funding for the conflict but hold back most of the money until President Bush reports on the war's progress in July.
Coming only a week after the Democrats' first war funding bill was vetoed, the House's 221 to 205 vote defied a fresh veto threat and even opposition from Democrats in the Senate.
"The president has brought us to this point by vetoing the first Iraq Accountability Act and refusing to pay for this war responsibly," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "He has grown accustomed to the free hand on Iraq he had before January 4. Those days are over."
The final tally came just an hour after antiwar Democrats mustered 171 votes for far tougher legislation that would all but end U.S. military involvement in Iraq within nine months. The 255 to 171 vote against that measure meant that nowhere close to a majority backed it, but the fact that 169 Democrats and two Republicans voted for it surprised opponents and proponents alike.
"I didn't think I was going to get anywhere near 171 votes," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), the withdrawal bill's chief author. "This is proof that the United States Congress is getting closer to where the American people already are."
The two votes culminated 24 hours of maneuvering and intrigue.
On Wednesday night, Pelosi offered antiwar liberals a vote on the withdrawal bill after it became clear that she could lose the vote on the war funding bill without that concession.
White House political adviser Karl Rove, furious that Republican moderates had divulged a confrontational meeting they had on Tuesday with Bush on the war, started yesterday with an angry conversation with the meeting's organizer, Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.), according to several GOP lawmakers. Dan Meyer, the White House's chief lobbyist, called the other participants to express the administration's unhappiness.