March 29, 2007

EVEN BUSHROVE ISN'T THAT BRILLIANT:

Bush Derides Iraq War Measure: He Says Democrats Will Be Blamed if Funds Are Held Up (Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman, 3/29/07, Washington Post)

In his most combative comments yet, President Bush mocked Democratic lawmakers yesterday for including a deadline for troop withdrawals and "pork" projects in an Iraq spending bill, declaring that "the American people will know who to hold responsible" if funding for the war stalls. [...]

Many Republicans are eager for Bush to veto the legislation, believing it could bolster him politically by reinforcing his role as commander in chief, while bringing about the Democrats' first public defeat on Iraq since they took control of Congress in January. Even GOP critics of Bush's Iraq record regard the Democratic withdrawal effort as overly meddlesome.

"The war will be funded," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told CNN yesterday morning. "And we will give these young people a chance to succeed, not a signal that we're going to depart at a certain date and divorce totally from reality on the ground."

In a speech to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Bush said "members of Congress need to stop making political statements and start providing vital funds for our troops. They need to get that bill to my desk so I can sign it into law."

Although Democratic leaders said they still hope to negotiate a final war spending bill that the president could sign, they now view a presidential veto as unavoidable. To prepare, they are studying the events of 1995 and 1996, when President Bill Clinton vetoed appropriations bills and then successfully blamed Congress for shutting down the government.


A Democratic threat to shut down the government pretty much has to be called the Cleavon Little Strategy.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 29, 2007 7:04 AM
Comments

Language is important, and names must be rectified

Not war, occupation. War is what we get later if the occupation is abandoned.

Posted by: Lou Gots at March 29, 2007 10:16 AM

Not occupation, pacification. The latter means we want to get out, the former means we want to still stick around 6 decades later (see Germany, Korea, et.al.) And pacification requires the cooperation of the natives, while with occupation, you just slap them down hard if they get uppity.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at March 29, 2007 11:22 AM

Since pacification is out of the question, seeing that the rival mob families hate each other more than they hate Jews and Crusaders, we must create desolation before we can call it peace.

This has not changed since Tacitus turned the phrase concerning the Romans, and certainly had been true of Germany and Japan.

Now, the sublimely masterful stroke would be to appear to have bugged out and to see the entire jailhouse tear itself to pieces. This is not beyond the realm of possibility" a result surpassing Sun Tzu's "acme of excellence," but fraught with risk, because of the presence of Israel in the equation.

The alternative to thus throwing fate into the teeth of the stormwind remains occupation.

Posted by: Lou Gots at March 29, 2007 2:03 PM

Brilliant. Gun to own head. "Nobody move or ..."

I've seldom laughed so hard.

Posted by: ghostcat at March 29, 2007 3:48 PM
« SUPLEXED HIM: | Main | THERE'S A WRITER WHO NEVER MET ROGIE VACHON: »