Answering reporters' questions at a White House news conference, Bush said the developments would occur once U.S. military reinforcements are in place in mid-June. "We can expect more American and Iraqi casualties," Bush said. "We must provide our troops with the funds and resources they need to prevail."
And, the Democratic Congress is helping. Joe Conanson should be glad. Yeah, I'm going to be a wee bit sarcastic here. The Democrats did not want to go on the Memorial Day recess (is it an official one? any recess appointments coming up?) with no funding bill, afraid of what their constituents would say. The connection with JC here is that he criticized Edwards for suggesting that one way we can honor the dead (well, our dead) .. the point of Memorial Day vs. Veteran's Day -- was to protest. This would upset a few veteran groups and would be used to bludgeon the Dems by the other side. This wimpness pissed me off. The point being that it does the dead little good to stay silent as things are done to further more dead. Ours and theirs.
The Democrats are currently trying to be a real first branch of government -- Art. I and all that -- by providing hearings and criticism along with some legislation. The latest is Monica Goodling, who has [to quote a movie] used her conscience as her witness by blaming someone who already quit. Yes, the deputy who resigned, also a nice scapegoat for AG ... hey, I'm just the attorney general, man. I don't do things like decide who gets fired and all. Sheesh. Oh, she said she might have crossed the line (not that she MEANT to ... honest) respecting partisan hiring decisions that are against the law. Surely, the White House liaison to the Justice Dept. shouldn't be expected to know too much about the law or anything. It's all soooo hard.
[But, Dahlia Lithwick over at Slate deemed her the Ellie Woods (Legally Blonde) sort ... hey, I just saw Sally Fields in a commercial. She was in the sequel (lame movie). And, maybe she is a good worker ... depends on what job you trust her with, I guess. Gonzo is good for something too ... not quite what I want in a AG, though.]
As to that general issue, there is some talk about how there seems to be no laws being broken, though some of the partisan choices made were dubious at best. I have my doubts -- the use of partisan reasons for Justice Department. hires, other than clear policy roles -- is against the law. Pressuring prosecutors to bring cases to further partisan ends, not as demanded by due prosecutoral discretion (and due process), and firing them when they do not do so ... legal? And, there is always lying to Congress. But, simply put, faithly executing the law requires more than some overly technical following of the law. And, the "hey, it's technically legal" doesn't quite work.
Principled people simply don't work that way. We simply cannot accept our President to either. The fact that a significant enough to matter part think it is at least semi-acceptable (even if they aren't so happy about it ... we live with loads of things we aren't so happy about ... some things are a tad worse than that) is troubling. It suggests a sentiment and spirit that underlines that there still are problems as to what we expect from our leaders. We also need to expect more from the Democratic leadership. Their self-defeating, we will get a bill passed "to fund the troops" with some bipartisan support, inviting defeat at the very beginning is just plain stupid.
The matter is not funding the troops! You idiots! The measure that was vetoed "funded" the troops. The President deprived the troops of various things over the last few years. It was about some sort of limits ... even if they were hortatory, given the President could ignore them. I sort of thought this was sort of why many voted for Dems last November, ensuring Senate control by paper thin margins in a couple essential states. But, hey, they tried. The President vetoed it ... and threatened to veto a second one, that took out that dastardly pork (b.s. ... these things always have pork) and made benchmarks voluntary. What exactly is so tough about FORCING him to veto that too? A bill that VOLUNTARILY set some limits. That took out some of the pork that the bs-er in chief said was a key problem. Hello?!
No, instead we have to hear the offensive minority leader of the Senate saying he is glad that the "surrender" (surrender! yes, we need to get some of these people on board ... you asshole) benchmarks (or whatever they called them ... reminded me of the "goals" that make affirmative action programs just okay enough to pass O'Connoresque legal muster) would not be in. We have the President with a popularity level somewhere akin to the Yanks in Boston and a minority party that got kicked out of power because of their sucking up to an administration that let Gonzo lead the Justice Department (it's connected, people) WIN! Yes. [Expletive deleted] Hint: running out the clock is winning.
By the way, about eighty senators voted for the damn thing. Dodd voted against it early ... Clinton and Obama, the former I recall having a name before "Dodd" ... after the votes were in. Barack "I was against this war in 2002 when I didn't have to vote on it" Obama didn't want to go on record before today. He had to read the thing, you know. Thanks. I know Edwards help lead the charge for the war in 2002, but you take that, and still respect him more for firmly being against this thing, and early. He was out there, made some mistakes, and hopefully learnt from them.
Yes, I'm leaning toward voting him again in the primary ... though damn the fact they are front loaded is at least a bit troublesome. Meanwhile, people like Nancy Pelosi -- against this thing -- now have to explain how the Democrats continue to be in a superior position and out there doing some good. [Hey, at least we got a minimum wage hike ... yeah, the fact the party won control back means something ... some just expect a tad bit more than that.]
You have to do it, but damn, you just make it hard sometimes. Check the thread to one such "it wasn't really a loss" attempt, last link, for the dubiousness of many, including the limited nature of the fight. Shouldn't the Dems got SOMETHING out of this? How exactly is it a "Republican" war when 80 senators (again, the vote count was less offensive in the House ... closer to the people) voted for funding? Just curious. Gonzo got in with about forty Dems voting against him. Maybe a few more. Again, some reports (including Keith Olberman) has even Clinton and Obama not voting against to late, the message sent they were wary. They are still enabling.
I'm sick of it. One last thing ... enough with these damn "supplementals." An idea would be to be on record to firmly demand we stop these ad hoc funding measures. Congress has clear Art. I military/war funding for a freakening reason, to provide a check. Emergency ad hoc bills with fake "not funding the troops" mantras as if they are like some hour slave living paycheck to paycheck cheats us of such safeguards.
[btw, I'm sick of the Braves too. Mets 3-6 so far, all Perez wins. A tad bit pathetic.]