« Dressing a Straw Man | Main | John McCain Supports Gay Marriage »

If Wishes Were Horses Bush Would Still Be A Cowboy

Image courtesy of Conspiracyarchive.com
Headline: Bush demands war bill with no strings

Yeah? Tough shit. The Bush administration seems to have difficulties with the BASIC tenets of the US Constitution. It's almost like this whole thing is make believe for President Bush. But is he still a rough ridin', straigh talkin' cowboy? Or is he King George, ruler of all Dummydom?

Yes, George, you are Commander in Chief and you have a valid argument to make in whether Congress can meddle in how you run your war. No, you cannot ignore Congress when they ask you pesky questions or exert their control of the purse. They give you the money; they get to ask how you're going to spend it.

Forget the pre-9/11 mindset, maybe George W. Bush still lives in a pre-Magna Carta world where he has the Divine Right of Kings and answers only to the Lord above? If only...you know what happens to deposed Kings, don't you George?



In some ways I wish Repubs still had control of Congress, just to ride out Bush's lame duck term and make certain they have NO EXCUSES in 2008. This gives them a little more ammo in the "Dems don't support the soldiers" dept. Yes it is the height of lame, but it works.

I'm not too worried about it, and I am enjoying the GOP on their heels trying to figure out how to spin the stuff they did when they had subpoena power, etc.

"This gives them a little more ammo in the 'Dems don't support the soldiers' dept. Yes it is the height of lame, but it works."

I don't think it does anymore, Bar. A solid majority of Americans now want a timeline for withdrawal. The Dems, for once, are in step with the American public on the war.

I'm always leery of hearing about what the "American public" wants. An election is the only real depiction of what that really is, and I don't think the recent majority of democrats is an indication of what America wants regarding the war. 2004 was, and 2008 will be.

Now, if the issue is health care, tax credits, stuff like that--I'll be more inclined to buy it, because these are issues most adults deal with in their daily lives. When it's war, I frankly don't think most of us know what we're talking about--especially if what we're hearing of the war is basically who got killed where.

A timetable is inevitably a political tool, and while most democrats are very careful to note that nothing should be set in stone, I feel they are setting themselves up, once again, to be shown as two-faced fools like they were the first time out.

The first time out in what? I don't follow that sentence.

Polls are shit, we all know that. There's any number of ways numbers can be twisted, but beyond the polls are plenty of instances of public opinion having turned against the war. Op-Eds from others than the MoveOn crowd; ex-generals voicing dissent; towns making declarations; traditional Conservatives speaking out against unending occupation...

Anything spoken by a politician is inherently "political" but so what? This war was political. 9/11 was political. Who cares? Congress has a role to play in foreign affairs, and that includes warfare. They could exercise the War Powers Act if they wanted (remember, the US hasn't decalred war on anyone and so the Commander in Chief is limited in his wartime powers).

If anyone is in political peril in this whole thing, it's Republicans in Congress. If they voted for this bill then they have completely lost the remaining neo-con waterheads who still support this fiasco and still hold sway over primaries. If they voted against it then they've lost most of everyone else.

We put limits on military engagements all the time.

Well, actually, Bush CAN ignore Congress. That's a fundamental part of the neocon unitary-executive theory. Also, Bush believes that he is a visionary doing god's work and in due time histroy will prove that he was right. If this is his core belief, why the hell would he listen to Congress?

Glenn Greenwald recently had a column in Salon that describes who Bush DOES list to: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/14/roberts_luncheon/index.html

D, I was talking about "supporting the war before being against it."

You call the war a fiasco but many soldiers are saying we're doing something good over there and believe in the cause. It's not a stunning success but it's not an abject failure either. It's complicated, and I think our first thought should be with those who are fighting it.

An aside: I can't help but think of being able to say "I PolJu so!" everytime I come to this sight.

"It's not a stunning success but it's not an abject failure either."

I would say removing a stable (if undiserable) government and replacing it with civil war in an already unstable region is an abject failure. Are there glimmers of good in Iraq? Of course. Soldiers and commanders and civil servants are all working hard and there are small successes, but as a policy decision for the protection of US interests I can't think of a bigger fuck up in recent memory.

Post a comment

Get GLONO merch!