The War Party: Democrats Lie to Prolong Iraq; Reporters Go Along

[bread_and_roses]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/13/3806/

Published on Thursday, September 13, 2007 by Ted Rall.com
The War Party: Democrats Lie to Prolong Iraq; Reporters Go Along
by Ted Rall

Americans don’t know how their government works. Democrats, in control of Congress, are taking advantage of our ignorance to continue the Iraq War. Which brings up two questions: Why won’t the “antiwar” Democrats act to stop the carnage? And why aren’t reporters calling them on it?”

Democrats,” writes Charles Babington in an Associated Press item that appeared in hundreds of newspapers, “control both chambers but lack the numbers to override President Bush’s vetoes of bids to mandate troop withdrawals from Iraq.” It’s a half-truth at best: the Democrats’ narrow majority is less than the two-thirds majority they’d need to override a presidential veto. Here’s the full truth: it doesn’t matter.

In June Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting’s Extra! Magazine wrote: “If the Democrat-controlled Congress wanted to force the Bush administration to accept a bill with a withdrawal timeline, it didn’t have to pass the bill over Bush’s veto–it just had to make clear that no Iraq War spending bill without a timeline would be forthcoming.”...

...Democrats worry that they’ll be portrayed as weak on defense if they act unilaterally to pull out of Iraq. Irony of ironies, they’re wussing out to avoid looking wimpy. Forcing Republicans to vote with them to end the war, they calculate, would give them political cover. Extra! continued: “Democrats may not have wanted to pay the supposed political costs of , but news coverage should have made clear that this was a choice, not something forced on them by the lack of a veto-proof majority.”

How interesting that in this case in which the MSM could genuinely point to the Dem lack of spine it instead chooses to give them cover for their pusillanimity. And this is why Sheehan, Code Pink et all is in the right to keep the pressure on our "friends" in Congress.

[democratsin08]

1. we have a gutless congress

they seem to be living in fear.

[acmavm]

2. Okay, just counting the seconds 'til the supporters of the Little Democratic

Congress the Couldn't show up to spew the 'we don't have the votes' crap line again (and again and again and again).

[Totally Committed]

3. So you won't wait here alone, I'll wait with you....

:popcorn: <<<< Breakfast of champions... have some?

TC

[acmavm]

10. Wheaties? Why, thank you.

[NavyDavy]

9. the war isn't the only thing we need to worry about....we have

people here in this country starving, living without healthcare, etc etc etc and you guys are like a one note politician, iraq war iraq war...its important but its not the only thing that needs to be done...

[acmavm]

11. Where's all the money going that could be used for food,

healthcare, etc? Why, I do believe that it's being spent on the Pentagon and two wars that we're losing.

Too bad you guys can't figure that out.

[Perry Logan]

4. If you're going to badmouth Congress, you could at least get your facts straight.

Far from acting spinelessly, the Democrats in Congress have set records for the vehemence and consistency of their opposition to the administration:

"President Bush's success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

"So far this year, Democrats have backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time on average on such votes. That marks the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1728952&mesg_id=1728952
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html

And keep in mind: this is with a bare majority in both houses--and with an obstructionist Republican minority fighting them all the way.

So the Democrats in Congress have done a great job. And here you guys call them cowards! Go figure.

[DCKit]

5. I think the frustration stems from the fact that

BushCo fucked things up a lot faster then this congress seems to be fixing them.

We're all screaming mad, but I really admire the leadership they've shown... well, except for Nancy. WTF is her deal?

[bread_and_roses]

6. And last I read, Congress has a lower rating than Little Boots

I don't call aiding and abetting the puppet and his Corporate Masters in killing people "a great job." And by the polls, the public doesn't either.

[Major Hogwash]

8. And Congress has those low ratings because of the filibusters the Republicans used this year.

I distinctly remember reading about them this spring.

Oh, yeah, and then there's the budget bill they actually passed that Bush vetoed that had a timeline attached to it.

[acmavm]

12. And they after it got vetoed instead of fight back and sending it

to him again, they rolled over like good doggies and played dead.

[karynnj]

7. In agree

In addition, on the war, the President has an enormous amount of latitude. Not submitting a defense budget at all will lead to a constitutional crisis, but not the immediate end of the war. The President will re-allocate money from other things. What they seem to have done is to present an alternative path and to try to push the President to gradually accept pieces of it. The constitution clearly makes the President the leader on actual war policy, so it like try to move a pull toy lying on the floor by pushing on the string. The President's task is far easier - he gets to move the toy by pulling the string.

[Hydra]

13. and what about FISA?

and the 100 billion for haliburton? the 50 billion more forthcoming? Conyers being blocked in his investigations?

How is it that that when Bush asks for something large and unnecessary, he gets it, if our Congress is doing such a good job?