Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Senators still trying to stay on the fence (Guest post by Noise)

But Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican and Vietnam War veteran, angrily argued that including language supporting war funding in a resolution that opposes the troop surge in Iraq does not make much sense. "Isn't it true that when I look one of these soldiers or Marines in the eye and say I really support you, my friend, and I know you are going in harm's way, and I do not think you are going to succeed, and I do not support your mission, but I support you, they don't buy it, they don't buy it, I would say," he said. (1)

Sen. McCain is right. Non binding conviction is more like it. Weak opposition is sickening to watch.

Senate Republicans=Executive Branch proxy. It seems they believe that proper oversight would only embolden the terrorists.

Sirota:

Following Republican shenanigans on the floor of the Senate tonight whereby the GOP filibustered Sen. John Warner’s (R-VA) non-binding Iraq resolution, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) held a conference call to discuss exactly what the hell is going on. You can listen to a three-minute audio excerpt in Windows Media format here and MP3 format here - it is an exchange I had with Feingold about the power equation at work behind all the rhetoric coming out Washington.

After the election we had on November 7th and after polls have registered the public’s deep anger at the President for trying to escalate the war, you would think Democrats would be pushing legislation with real teeth and not just non-binding nothingness, especially if the GOP was going to filibuster anyway. Well, you’d be wrong. In the audio excerpt, I asked Feingold if this is because of Ben Nelson-ism - that is, because of conservative Democrats who are willing to use a brinkmanship progressive senators rarely use. As you can hear, Feingold says it’s even deeper - he says this is a battle between Democrats’ Washington consultant class and the rest of the country - and he specifically targets the D.C. elites from the Clinton administration, who he accurately notes largely supported the war from the get-go.

3 comments:

«—U®Anu§—» said...

I had an extensive comment, but Blogger ate it. Anyway...keep up the good work, Noise.

noise said...

Thanks. Sporadic at best. :)

What is disturbing is that Congress would find a non binding resolution appropriate...in light of Bush's awful track record.

The disconnect between the reality of the occupation policy and the D.C. beltway perception is hard to believe.

LeeB said...

I did hear several of the Dems say that the non binding resolution was just a first step - give bu$h time to re-think his position while they waited for the budget and funding bills to come up for debate. The budget was just presented to Congress on the 5th. I forget who it was that listed several of the ways in which they could pull the funding, not to mention revisiting the authority to use force. I keep hoping we'll soon see the NEXT step in their plan. [My own *next step* would be men with butterfly nets and straight jackets descending on the White House and hauling those bastards away to padded, soundproof rooms until they can be moved to The Hague.]

Before we all slit our wrists, we should also try to remember that the maneuver the thugs pulled in the Senate is one that will be remembered when 21 of their number face re-election in 2008.