Juan Cole seems to support the view that Democrats are powerless to stop the war although people have told him that funding could be cut. However he claims that doing so is not realistic! Lets see stopping a policy that has been a disaster and bringing the troops home would be "obstruction". Anyway if the Democrats do win, they will no doubt keep troops in Iraq on the grounds that it is necessary to keep Iran at bay and prevent civil war breaking out again. There is basic bipartisan agreement on the war. The disagreement is to how best mislead the public.
Cheers, Ken Hanly Many readers suggested the route of cutting off funds and refusing to present any other Defense budget, but realistically speaking that is a very dangerous ploy that could get them defeated in the next election as obstructionists. And if they are defeated, the Republican Party will keep the US in Iraq, so what would be the point? from: http://www.juancole.com/ --- Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/13/3806/ > The War Party: Democrats Lie to Prolong Iraq; > Reporters Go Along > by Ted Rall > > Americans dont know how their government works. > Democrats, in control > of Congress, are taking advantage of our ignorance > to continue the Iraq > War. Which brings up two questions: Why wont the > antiwar Democrats > act to stop the carnage? And why arent reporters > calling them on it? > > Democrats, writes Charles Babington in an > Associated Press item that > appeared in hundreds of newspapers, control both > chambers [of Congress] > but lack the numbers to override President Bushs > vetoes of bids to > mandate troop withdrawals from Iraq. Its a > half-truth at best: the > Democrats narrow majority is less than the > two-thirds majority theyd > need to override a presidential veto. Heres the > full truth: it doesnt > matter. > > In June Fairness and Accuracy in Reportings Extra! > Magazine wrote: If > the Democrat-controlled Congress wanted to force the > Bush administration > to accept a bill with a withdrawal timeline, it > didnt have to pass the > bill over Bushs vetoit just had to make clear that > no Iraq War > spending bill without a timeline would be > forthcoming. > > Democratic leaders know that. And heres how I know > they know: days > after taking control of Congress, on January 30, > they invited five > constitutional law experts to testify before the > Senate Judiciary > Committee to ask them how they could end the war. > Four out of five of > the experts swore that the Democrats could stop the > Iraq War just like that. > > Today weve heard convincing testimony and analysis > that Congress has > the power to stop the war if it wants to, said > Senator Russ Feingold > (D-WI). Yet eight months later, theres still no end > in sight. > > The Dems won the 2006 elections with promises to end > the war. Weeks > after taking over Congress, however, Republicans > spooked them with one > of the most ludicrous talking points of all time. > Cutting off the money, > they said, would abandon U.S. soldiers at the front, > their ammo > dwindling as Al Qaeda insurgents swarmed over them. > (Actuallythe fact > that I have to write this speaks to the American > rights intellectual > dishonestythe troops would go to the airport. They > would board > airplanes. They would fly home.) > > Democrats worry that theyll be portrayed as weak on > defense if they act > unilaterally to pull out of Iraq. Irony of ironies, > theyre wussing out > to avoid looking wimpy. Forcing Republicans to vote > with them to end the > war, they calculate, would give them political > cover. Extra! continued: > Democrats may not have wanted to pay the supposed > political costs of > [cutting off funding], but news coverage should have > made clear that > this was a choice, not something forced on them by > the lack of a > veto-proof majority. > > Rather than set the record straight, the media > continues to spread the > Democrats-cant-stop-the-Republican-war meme this > week: > > Michael Duffy, Time magazine: If Democrats had more > votesparticularly > in the Housethey might be able to force Bush to > change course. But Bush > will fight any resolution fencing him in with a veto > that, as things > stand now, the Democrats cannot override. But the > Presidents critics > will continue to try, hoping to attract moderate > Republicans who are > fearful of losing their seats next year. > Occasionally Time invites me > to its Christmas party. If I score an invite this > year, my present for > their fact-checkers will be a copy of the > Constitution. > > Marcella Bombardieri, The Boston Globe: In the > Senate, Democrats have > only a 51 to 49 majority, far from the 60 votes > needed to prevent a > filibuster and the 67 needed to override a > presidential veto. All > efforts to force a troop withdrawal have failed, and > the party will have > to count on substantial Republican defections to > make any further > progress this fall. Ill be checking the Globe for > a retraction. > > Brian Knowlton, The New York Times: Knowlton > dutifully quoted Democratic > Senator Joe Bidens claim that there were political > limits on his > party, even with the Congressional majority it has > held since the > November midterm elections. This is the presidents > war, [Biden] said. > Unless we get 67 votes to override his veto, > theres nothing we can do > to stop this war Not only did the Times fail to > call Biden on his > brazen lie, it gave him the last word. > > Youd think the Democrats would want to end the Iraq > War before their > likely retaking of the White House, but thats > because youre a human > being, not a politician. Politicians are happy to > dispatch hundreds of > young American men and women to certain death (along > with thousands of > Iraqis), if the bloodshed squeezes out an extra half > percentage point at > the polls. Reid and Pelosi prefer to run against a > disastrous ongoing > Republican war than point to a fragile > Democratic-brokered peace. > > Why are so many respected journalists parroting the > Democratic party > line? I suspect that corporate media culture, rather > than Judith > Miller-style malfeasance, is largely to blame. > Ink-stained newsrooms > have been replaced by bullpen offices > indistinguishable from those of > banks or insurance companies. Reporters used to come > from the working > classes. They distrusted politicians and > businessmen, and politicians > and businessmen loathed them. Todays journalists > are products of > cookie-cutter journalism schools. Because graduate > schools rarely offer > scholarships, few come from the lower or middle > classes. They look like > businessmen. When they meet a politician, they see a > possible friend. > They wear suits and ties. And when a U.S. senator > like Joe Biden feeds > them a line of crap, they gobble it up. > > Ted Rall is the author of the new book Silk Road to > Ruin: Is Central > Asia the New Middle East?, an in-depth prose and > graphic novel analysis > of Americas next big foreign policy challenge. > Blog: http://kenthink7.blogspot.com/index.html Blog: http://kencan7.blogspot.com/index.html
