Here is the Salon piece on the occupation funding bill referenced yesterday. The NY Daily News had a better framing of the situation, but still left out a key fact.* Is this really so hard? It would seem to me rather logical and obvious that what should be included in any account is the vote itself and the reason why said vote was not enough. The NY Daily News piece, a small one though it has a byline (aka not just "AP"), is entitled "Hill stalemate on war funding, troop pullbacks." [Kenneth Bazinet, who has gotten notice in the blogs etc. in the past, wrote the story. Cannot find a link.]
Now, though Rachel Maddow (Air America) appears not to realize that talking about an Iraq "war" instead of an "occupation" is controversial in some quarters -- she never raises the point to my knowledge on her show, though she is a popular left leaning guest commentator on the small screen, so should be aware of such stuff -- the use of "war" is fairly unnotable as such. So, the headline is a good start -- it gives you a sense of what is really happening, though not exactly. Why stalemate?
To some extent, it is Democrat failure, but the immediate cause is near total Republican unity (including in the House, where only a few stray ones -- finally including Christopher Shays [the much ballyhooed 'moderate' who all too often goes along for the ride vote time] -- supported the Dem proposal). And, the article did note the Senate Republicans "killed" (strong language, especially given the context) the "latest bill ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq." First sentence. A better article might remind that said troop withdrawals are required to take place by the end of next year, leaving tens of thousands there for some reasons all the same.
In dream land, therefore, it would be quite likely that the real responsibility would be the next administration (always can find some reason to delay a few months) and troops will be still stay to cause trouble. The good news -- dare to dream -- is that the Dems are now saying that if you don't take this proposal, we aren't going to give you any more funds to next year. This threat comes about six months too late, though it does underline that hey Congress has the power of the purse, and has to affirmatively okay such funding. No need of "60 votes" (crap anyway ... see the AG confirmation etc.) or "67 votes" for that. Remember, that there is enough funding now for current operations. It's something though, if they have the guts to keep it up.
[The article, strikingly, ends by noting that since the fighting began, Congress has appropriated more than $604 billion -- amazing given how the Iraq conflict was supposed to almost pay for itself -- for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be interesting to know how much of that was appropriated since January 2007. Hint: too much.]
Sen. Reid spoke of "The President and his enablers in Congress" being "afraid of being held accountable" ... so quoted the piece ... and this too is a great soundbite. Like George III ("he") of the Declaration of Independence fame, the President rightly is a suitable symbol of what is wrong these days. He is after all the PRESIDENT and the head of both the state and the Republican party. But, in both cases he is only the head ... he has lots of help. Or, as they say in the recovery movement, "enablers." Sen. Reid might not wish to dwell on the fact, but these include many Dems, including he himself in various instances.
For instance, Glenn Greenwald has focused on Sen. Feinstein and others, most recently those who can't bear to honor the Fourth Amendment. But, Reid himself helped, including by rushing the AG confirmation and by helping to let Bush Dog Dems to get off easy in their Bush friendly ways. And, that gets to the fact left out -- before the Senate Republicans killed the latest bill, what was the vote on the measure? Hint: a majority voted for it. This fact has to be underlined. The article (bottom half) did note that the Republicans used a procedural vote "to kill" (that word again) a measure that would start the withdrawal process in a month, and supply $50 million of funding in return.
[More here from TPM ... note how even there the true nature of what is going on was not fully expressed, surely not front and center. And, some comments are rightly pissed at it. This underlines how November 2006 was only the "end of the beginning" and a lot more has to be done to have a fully credible (a weak work in itself) government. Don't give me "you can do much worse" shit, okay? Some comments on a TPM piece on Edwards at first being hesitant to say that he would support HC if she was nominated -- realistically more fodder for the "she's the nominee, but we can't quite say that yet" meme -- did just that. Support HC in November, or get Rudy!! Ack!!!! We get this in November 2007?]
Still, the vote should be front and center, maybe even in the headline. Something like "Senate majority supports withdrawal, Republican block it." "Hill stalemate" spreads the blame around, which is only partially accurate. People should be reading their papers and noting while drinking their coffee: "hmm ... a majority of Congress wants to bring the boys home -- sort of seems time, huh? mess over there and with the holidays and all, makes you think -- but it says here the Republicans 'killed' the chance. Doesn't seem kosher, does it?" Fact is, many focus on the lede and only glance at the contents of the articles, especially on such a "stalemate" matter as depressing as this one.
This is how process -- here how a story is being told -- affects substance. It all ties together. See also, this important apparently "inside baseball" analysis of a review of the ethics of Bush's legal advisers failing to follow their obligations -- which were more than telling the administration what they wanted to hear. And, it reaffirms a basic point of mine -- the law is usually best upheld outsides of the courts.
---
* Opposite the article analyzed below are the usual quickie wire account pieces. One discusses some fake currency seized by federal officials featuring Ron Paul. The far right rather him than some of the typical ex-presidents on our (real) coins. This gave more fodder for the blogger doing good work underlining (since the press barely mentions Paul at all) that for those who wish to support a true maverick candidate, Ron Paul leaves something to be desired. His campaign denies any involvement but it is telling all the same, especially with the other background the blog supplies.