Skip to main content

View Diary: Musings on SCHIP (173 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If people in congress can multitask (0+ / 0-)

    why the fuck aren't they?

    All they are doing is capitulating to the Bush administration at every turn.

    But, since they do it multiple time, I suppose that can be contorted into 'multi-tasking' ?

    Maybe the next time Congress trades the deaths of 100,000 or so more Iraqis, they'll at least get a tad more bang for the buck . . . then we'll all go sleep soundly.

    •  the trouble (0+ / 0-)

      with the Congressional Dems is they don't know what to do about iraq. They have not decided withdrawal is good for America. And in this, they lag behind the American people.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 02:00:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Plus, even if they did decide that withdrawal... (0+ / 0-)

        ...was what they wanted, they can't, as a practical matter, force the issue with causing massive chaos.  They would have to not pass a Department of Defense budget, defunding the entire military on a permanent basis, for starters (Bush will veto any DoD bill without the Iraq war funding he wants).

        Congress is not going to defund the entire military; therefore, Bush gets his war.

        Congress has only minimal leverage here unless they have 67 votes.  People can't understand that for some reason.

        •  Oh, and even if they did defund the miliary in... (0+ / 0-)

          ...this fashion, Bush could, using various laws such as the ones regarding partial government shut downs that allow for emergency, nation security spending (such as a war), or the Feed and Forage Act, keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, even without Congress passing funding.

          •  I would very very much (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Roadbed Guy

            like to see him do that . . . . And justify it, publicly, each day for the remainder of his administration.

            Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

            by Lenny Flank on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 05:49:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The problem is twofold (0+ / 0-)

              First, there's no Department of Defense budget!  This doesn't strike anybody as a bad idea on a whole number of levels?

              Second, the funding would be slapdash and haphazard.  Forget about any new equipment (to protect solider's lives) from getting into the battlefield.  Everytime a solider dies from something that could have been prevented by new equipment, you bet we'll hear about how it's the Democrat's fault.  Second, any luxuries the soliders have will be taken away.  Sorry, no internet access for the troops so they can talk to home-the Democrats won't pay for it.  Sorry, solider, you get bread and water-the Democrats won't let me give you real food.

              It's not possible in the real world for the Congress to end the war.  We need to accept that and move on.

              •  as I said (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Roadbed Guy

                First, there's no Department of Defense budget!  This doesn't strike anybody as a bad idea on a whole number of levels?

                Nope.

                Let them sell off a few aircraft carriers for scrap metal.  (shrug)

                Second, the funding would be slapdash and haphazard.  Forget about any new equipment (to protect solider's lives) from getting into the battlefield.  Everytime a solider dies from something that could have been prevented by new equipment, you bet we'll hear about how it's the Democrat's fault.  Second, any luxuries the soliders have will be taken away.  Sorry, no internet access for the troops so they can talk to home-the Democrats won't pay for it.  Sorry, solider, you get bread and water-the Democrats won't let me give you real food.

                I would very much like to see Bush say this.  On TV.  Every night.

                Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                by Lenny Flank on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 06:04:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  under the Constitution (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Roadbed Guy

                which branch has the sole authority to declare and fund war?

                (pages through copy of the Consitution)

                Oh, here it is:

                The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

                To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

                Any questions?

                Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                by Lenny Flank on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 06:07:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  But who has the power to undeclare war? (0+ / 0-)

                  And to undeclare a war that was never declared in the first place?

                  There would be constituional questions involved here, certainly.  A lack of a funding bill does not order the troops out-it simply doesn't pay for them.  And there are current laws that continue funding in that situation (troops are overseas but Congress won't pay for them).  The other alternative is they stay there, they just starve to death because all support is cut off from them.  If there was a veto proof majority in both Houses in favor of withdrawal, this wouldn't be a question.  But since there isn't, it's up to Bush to order them home.  A lack of a funding bill doesn't do that.

                  •  they guy who holds the wallet (0+ / 0-)

                    That'd be us.

                    I'd like Bush to keep the war going without the money.

                    I'd very much like to see him try that.

                    Really, I would.

                    Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                    by Lenny Flank on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 06:30:47 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  A lot of Democratic congressmen... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...would not do that, since they keep saying they "support the troops".  Not giving the troops food or bullets isn't going to be seen as "supporting the troops".

                      The solution to getting out of Iraq is by electing a Democratic president in 2008.  And bitching about the Democratic congress hurts that goal.  So, every time somebody yells at the Democratic congress for not being able to do the impossible, they hurt their stated goal.

        •  you miss the point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roadbed Guy, James Kresnik

          It's not the fact that the Dems in Congress can't win on Iraq (or FISA, or . . . ) that upsets everyone --- no one disputes that they don't have the numbers.  It's that they give every appearence of not even wanting to fight.  After all, they folded like wet toilet paper on their much-vaunted "Congressional investigations" and "subpeonas", too -- and they don't need 2/3 of the votes for THAT.

          And I think DemFromCt is exactly correct -- the Dems in leadership roles aren't fighting to get out of Iraq because they don't really WANT to get out of Iraq.

          As recently as Ned Lamont's victory in the primary, the Dem leadership was talking about sending MORE troops to Iraq, to, as they put it, "finish the job".  Both Edwards and Hillary stated that they didn't want a withdrawal, just a "re-adjustment" in American deployment.  Obama of course made his political name through his opposition to the war right from the start -- and he fought against the Dem leadership the entire time because they did not oppose the war. They never were opposed to the Iraq War.  And that's why they are not opposing it now.

          They had better catch up to the rest of us, damn awfully quickly.  Their current foot-dragging just pisses off all the people who elected them.

          Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

          by Lenny Flank on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 06:01:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you see Mike Tyson about to mug you... (0+ / 0-)

            ...why not just had over your wallet in the first place instead of trying to fight it out?

            They didn't fight because the outcome was preordained.  They were destined to lose-so why bother?

            Also, by not fighting they were able to stick some random crap into the funding bills (pork, minimum wage increase, SCHIP extension).  If they fought, they couldn't do that.

            •  why bother? (0+ / 0-)

              Because all those people who elected the Dems to fight, NEED TO SEE YOU FIGHTING.  At least if you want them to vote for you again.

              Because if you DON'T BOTHER TO FIGHT, you'll get lots and lots of reactions like all the dozens we see here every single day.

              Particularly when it's not at all clear that the Dems would fight to end the war EVEN IF YOU HAD THE NUMBERS.

              When the Dems didn't fight against the war before, and give every appearence of not fighting it now, are you at all surprised when lots of people conlcude that the Dems in Congress simply don't want to fight against the war because they're not really against it in the first place?

              What about all those "subpeonas" that got ignored.  What seems to be the problem there?  Or have the Dems already just handed their wallet over to Mike Tyson?

              Do you understand why it appears to so many people that the Dems simply are not on their side . . . ?

              Do you understand what happens if the Dems do nothing to at least counter that appearence?

              Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

              by Lenny Flank on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 06:38:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site