Jam tomorrow, jam yesterday - but never jam today.
Or, "Did we say September, netrooters? We meant Spring of 2008! Oops. Now it will put the money in the basket, or it gets the hose."
By Moe Lane Posted in Congress — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This was originally written out as "Lipstick on Pig Watch, 10/2/2007" - but the AP apparently found somebody who actually read HR 3087. Pity, in its way: I had some prime snark for that. Ach, well:
Senate approves $150B in war funding
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press WriterWASHINGTON - Thwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Monday's 92-3 vote comes as the House planned to approve separate legislation Tuesday that requires President Bush to give Congress a plan for eventual troop withdrawals.
That description of the House bill is inaccurate, by the way. How inaccurate? Well, the sentence "The latest bill doesn't set any timetable for a withdrawal and Republican leaders have said they will not oppose it" was in the first version of this article, but not the second.
In other words, the description is that inaccurate.
Read on.
Here you will find a copy of the latest version of HR 3087, the aforementioned House bill. To give you an idea of how severely it got changed, the original title was:
"A bill to require the President, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior military leaders, to develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces in Iraq."
and the new title is:
"A bill to require the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress reports on the status of planning for the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq and to require the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and appropriate senior officials of the Department of Defense to meet with Congress to brief Congress on the matters contained in the reports."
- And it pretty much goes on from there. This bill 'requires' the administration to come up with a plan about how we're to leave Iraq, should we decide to - I use quotes because it's precisely like 'requiring' the government to spend money or generate annual reports. Two months later, the administration has to tell Congress the status of that planning. Two weeks later, Congress gets to have the SecDef and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs over, to yell at them. 3 months after that, we get another report on the status of that planning. Two weeks after that, somebody in Defense gets to go get yelled at by Congress. And that's it.
Yeah, the Republicans in Congress are really shaking in their boots over this one.
On the brighter side (the dark side's pretty darn bright on its own): once this gets touted as the brave Democratic David against the evil Republican Goliath, this should put the Iraqi war on the back burner for a while. This will please the media, given that they'd rather write stories about the Brave Little Barack that Could*; this will also please Congress, given that they'd like to go back to doing nothing in particular. Heck, it'd please us: knock on wood, spit three times, and turn around widdershins, but things are looking up in Iraq just a bit. A no-lose situation, all around.
Well, at least a no-lose solution for anybody that matters**.
Moe
*But won't.
**What was the quote again? Ah, yes:
"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality — judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | A Convenient Coincidence for the SCHIP Veto — Comments (15) »
Jam tomorrow, jam yesterday - but never jam today. 17 Comments (0 topical, 17 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when did the Congress become the commander-in-chief? Why would the Secretary of Defense and Joint chiefs have to report to them on a strategy?
As far as I'm concerned, if they sign this bill it's like authorizing a coup for control of the military.
...they're reporting on how the planning for a strategy is coming along. They could come in every three months and say "Sorry, folks, but the plan is stalled until the Martians actually show up and give us some purple unicorns" and be perfectly within the rules here.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
"The Democrats today scheduled tough new meetings to discuss a plan to create a strategy."
If you read the Yurpeen press, there's a lot of that sort of thing going on over there. Having important meetings to schedule conferences to draft plans is the the new Third Way. It's a whole new system of government in which every problem is addressed without actually doing anything. The amazing thing is that this seems to be acceptable to the left-of-center voters who keep these politicians in office.
In the past we have decried the way that liberals have kept obviously counterproductive programs like AFDC in place because the intentions were noble and the programs made liberals feel good.
Now we find out they don't actually need the programs! All we have to do to make the liberals feel good is stage meetings to discuss plans to formulate policy!
Think of the billions we can save the taxpayers with this new insight.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality — judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
The aide is absolutely correct - but is that the way we really want our nation to behave? Do we really WANT to be an empire? Does our involvement in Iraq REALLY serve our desired ends?
It is my opinion that this nation needs to start focusing on the welfare and happiness of it's citizens. To be sure, this means maintaining a strong presence on the global stage, and keeping an eagle eye on our national security, but these goals will not be met by the gratuitous projection of hard power in places like Iraq. We are not served best when our goal is empire. Maintenance of an empire will lead our national leaders to look to our interest overseas first, and the well-being of our citizens second. Creation of a sustainable empire will lead those leaders to toss sovereignty to the wind in favor of "free trade."
This is not conservatism. It's radical liberalism run amok.
Conservatives needs a new leader, and that leader is Ron Paul.
If we're an empire creating new realities, how is our molding of international trade going to hurt us?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
The aide is conceptually correct - we could, if we wanted to, and were smart about it, create any reality we want, but are we really creating new realities? Is this administration smart enough to pull that off?
Put another way, the aide is thinking like a think-tank thinker; his logic is sound, his ideas are good, but they don't translate to the real world very well.
The truth is that we have not been terribly successful at empire building. We seem not to have what it takes on that count, and the reason is that we're not set up to be an empire - we were founded in opposition to empire, and our system of government is not conducive to changing that reality.
Our system is, however, great for changing domestic realities - so why not focus on that. Why not focus on making THIS country better instead of making IRAQ better? Why not focus on eliminating income tax? Why not focus on shrinking, rather than expanding the government, as this administration and the late republican congress did? Why not focus on creating prosperity, jobs, and trade at home?
If you think about it, we're an empire already, without having to try for it. We are an empire made up of FIFTY states, spanning a continent and in possession of immense resources, natural and human. We should focus on improving and strengthening THAT empire.
...is officially contraindicated.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
And these were my first comments. Please forgive any breach of etiquette. It was not my intention of offend or break the rules.
Sorry.
Feel free to do one. They'll show up on the right hand side, there.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I read it before I went to the link, and I thought it was missing dialogue from "The Princess bride". The aide must have said it with a smile and a wink.
REP. SKELTON: Secretary Gates, as I just spent five minutes reading a speech leading up to, CNN tells me my constituents hope that you have good news on redeploying our troops out of Iraq.
SEC. GATES: I do, Congressman. The good news is, that President Bush remains committed to continuing our support of our allies the Iraqi people, until Iraq is stable with "a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," against enemies who have "intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion."
And further, the "enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.
"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.
"In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace."
Oh wait, sorry Chairman, wrong President. That was President Bush's predecessor.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.