The old Vaudeville bit about a man hearing a trigger word and slowly going into a pre-programmed tirade seems to be the best shorthand I can think of (other than perhaps “6-minute abs” from There’s Something About Mary) to describe what is probably happening at the White House now after the Senate voted 50-48 to leave in language calling for a troop pullout from Iraq— starting in just four months– as a condition of approving ongoing war funding. Wildman Chuck Hagel of Nebraska joined RINO Gordon Smith of Oregon to cross party lines (Pryor of Arkansas was the lone Dem sellout… Lieberman was with the GOP on this… as usual…), and put the measure over the top.
It’s called a “must-pass” bill because it’s funding “for the troops”. But this is horse-manure. The troops’ salaries are paid out of the existing DOD budget; so are their uniforms and munitions. (Or is the “new money” for that body and vehicle armor or medical care we’re not providing?) This is funding “for the war” or more accurately for Halliburton and Bechtel to provide “support services” that amount to frequently the opposite of “supporting our troops”– diverting them from their mission to guard civilian bigwigs who are just there to make money. So, to paraphrase Noel Coward’s Why Must the Show Go On?”, why is this a must-pass bill? Oh… the punch line… this troop withdawal part is NON-BINDING!!!
It strikes me that if it is, the branch of government that “needs” it to pass is the Executive… and yet it is the President who is threatening a veto if language is inserted telling him what the American people and their representatives want him to do (even if he doesn’t have to!). Well, let’s keep this in perspective: the President is welcome to veto the bill, but then he has no right whatsoever to expect a new one in its place to his liking. In fact, I would strongly suggest that House and Senate leaders suggest that “this is the best they can do”, its heavily compromised as it is, etc., etc., and if the President vetoes it, well, so be it… there just may not be a war funding bill at all.
We can see who gets to go all “schoolyard” on that, given that an astounding 59% polled want a troop withdrawal included in legislation.
In the end, I don’t think it will be the President.
tdog
The Dems complained that there was no plan to deal with the aftermath of liberating Iraq and now the Dems have no plan to deal with the aftermath of surrender and retreat.
What exactly will happen when the U.S. cuts and runs? Do you have a plan? Care to share it with us?
And BTW Swan, the CIA is as left-wing as the State Department. Hell, 2/3 of them are grad students in international affairs. They’re as partisan as everyone else in DC.
“Cut and run” is SOOOO 2004… the new mantra is “give Petraeus a chance”.
And hasn’t the CIA been through ENOUGH lately?
Oh, what’s the current lingo? Slow bleed? Redeployment? Unconditional surrender?
It’s hard to keep up with the all the new ways you defeatists try to “frame” what amounts to capitulation in the face of the enemy. There’s probably a good word for it in French.