No timeline, no firm benchmarks, and all the money George Bush could ever dream of to continue this insanity. It's the old "ask for the Moon and they'll settle for giving you what you want" tactic.
Merry Christmas, assholes!
From The Washington Post:
House Democratic leaders could complete work as soon as Monday on a half-trillion-dollar spending package that will include billions of dollars for the war effort in Iraq without the timelines for the withdrawal of combat forces that President Bush has refused to accept, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday.Great. Just great.
In a complicated deal over the war funds, Democrats will include about $11 billion more in domestic spending than Bush has requested, emergency drought relief for the Southeast and legislation to address the subprime mortgage crisis, Hoyer told a meeting of the Washington Post editorial board.
If the bargain were to become law, it would be the third time since Democrats took control of Congress that they would have failed to force Bush to change course in Iraq and continued to fund a war that they have repeatedly vowed to end. But it would also be the clearest instance yet of the president bowing to a Democratic demand for more money for domestic priorities, an increase that he had promised to reject.
"The way you pass appropriations bills is you get agreement among all the relevant players, among which the president with his veto pen is a very relevant player," Hoyer said. "Everybody knows he has no intention of signing anything without money for Iraq, unfettered, without constraints. I think that's ultimately going to be the result."
The Democrats plan to take a three-step approach to completing the deal. House leaders are considering an initial allotment of about $30 billion, ostensibly for the war in Afghanistan and some other military needs, which all sides in the deal recognize could be shifted to fund the Iraq war.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) then would allow Republicans to increase that amount to avert a filibuster of the spending bill in the Senate. The goal of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is $70 billion for the war, more than the $50 billion short-term funding that House Democrats initially proposed but far less than the $196 billion Bush has sought.
The Senate-passed bill would then go to the House for final approval.
McConnell was the first to suggest the outlines of the deal, which would allow Congress to pass the 11 remaining appropriations bills for fiscal 2008. Hoyer said Democrats are ready to accept that bargain.
So if we give the Republicans what amounts to a blank check, they'll promise not to filibuster this awful fucking bill to begin with.
We suck. Completely and totally. If there's any doubt why so many new voters are registering as "unaffiliated", this is the reason. Nobody wants to belong to a party of suckers!
(* = by this, I'm including the women legislators by implying a lack of ovarian fortitude, too. If that's not politically correct enough for you, that's too bad. I'm fucking pissed!)
On the other hand, this Congress is trying in other areas: from Matthew Yglesias:
08 Dec 2007 05:08 pm
I think I haven't given the landmark energy legislation passed by the House its due, but Dave Roberts lays it all out for you. This is good, good stuff. And the even better news is that there's majority support in the US Senate for passing it as well. But of course as we all know just because something's a good idea and most Senators want to pass it doesn't mean it'll pass. Indeed, just the reverse! But the margins on this one are pretty close, so if the Democrats win some Senate seats in 2008 the dynamic stands a very good chance of changing, and even passing the Senate at this point probably woudn't do any good since Bush would veto it.
Meanwhile, I thought I would highlight this one piece of analysis because I think liberals tend not to give enough credit to the most powerful genuinely progressive politician in America: "Nonetheless, what came out of the house was stronger than almost anyone expected, a fact that can be attributed in large part to the tenacity of one woman: Speaker Nancy Pelosi."
Yes, I agree that sometimes they DO pass bills on that are good in some respects. Which will get vetoed anyway.
What I was talking about is using the power of the majority to BLOCK any bills that include war funding from going to the President UNLESS there is a timeline attached. If he continues to veto them, fine. Send a new one to him. Keep going until he folds.
Before 2006, if the Democrats threaten to filibuster, the Republicans threatened to take away the filibuster rule.
After 2006, if the Republicans threaten to filibuster, the Democrats fold like a cheap lawn chair. Are you seeing a pattern here?
Post a Comment