The current war funding bill, what little I know of it, is generally a good bill. Sure, there is some pork in it, as with all bills. But when you scrutinize it, even the pork isn’t all that bad, for the most part. A good deal of it is involving relief for farmers that have suffered through recent droughts, flooding, temperature extremes, etc. It’s easy to criticize such measures as that. Pay ten dollars for a grapefruit and you will see them in an entirely different perspective, however.
No, the problem with the bill isn’t the porks-it’s the dorks. The kind of dorks that just had to insist on a withdrawal of our forces in Iraq that oh my, what the fuck do you know, just happened to have been slated for the October before the next elections in 2008. My, what an amazing coincidence.
Of course, the bill will be vetoed, then we’ll see what happens. We’ll see what happens for example to the money allotted by the Democrats for veterans health care, and for making sure the troops receive the appropriate training before they are sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, like I said, it’s a good bill, were it not for that one provision. Take that one provision out, and it could well be one of the best bills ever considered, and certainly one of the best ones ever passed by Congress. But what good is it? You can go out on a date with the most beautiful woman the world has ever seen, she can fall madly in love with you and be willing to do anything you want. She can be charming, witty, and intelligent. She can make every man's head turn and every woman green with envy with just a glance. Despite all this you can rest assured she is all yours. But if you take her to your bedroom and lustfully undress her only to see maggots crawling out of her pussy, what good is it?
Well, in the case of this bill it's not quite that bad, but only because it is not too late. When Bush vetoes it as we all know he will, this provision can be excised, which it should be. Then, the Democrats can pass this bill otherwise intact. Bush wouldn’t dare then veto it on the grounds of pork, if he does, I will agree he’s as fucking stupid as a lot of people say he is. But he’s not that stupid, so he wouldn’t.
By excising this provision,the Democrats will have salvaged their chances of winning the ’08 elections, which if they win, then they can devote their agenda to ending the war on their terms, with control of the executive branch and both houses of Congress, it would be an almost sure bet the war would be ended by the next mid-terms.
Otherwise, if this provision is kept, the Democrats might be sabotaging their chances of winning, at the very least it will be a huge negative against them, and the Republicans will probably win for this as well as other reasons. Then, the war will more than likely go on longer, which may or may not be as big a catastrophe as a premature withdrawal. Still, it will go on longer than it will if the Democrats win. But with this provision in an otherwise excellent bill, they have pretty much screwed themselves.
I have never fucked a woman with maggots crawling out of her pussy, and it’s just as unlikely that Bush will ever pass this bill with this provision intact. As for the Democrats, I hope they are experiencing one hell of an orgasm right now, because they sure are fucking themselves.
6 comments:
The differences between parties are rhetorical.
How can you be against the war, and fund it? The Dems support the war, but want antiwar votes.
Renegade it's a hell of a lot more complicated than you're portraying it. There are people in both parties who legitimately feel that if we suddenly withdraw, Iraq will turn into a blood bath, much worse than what it is now, and it will cause the whole Middle East region to erupt.
I'm against the war in Iraq too, and am especially incensed at the incompetent way it has been handled. I think we should have focused on Afghanistan, a war which I did and still do support, and which is also going to hell in a handbasket these days.
But I want the Iraq War ended in a thoughtful way, one which will enable some degree of stability for the country and the region. Just up and getting out is not the way to accomplish that.
Besides, the troops are hostages, actually. A great many will encourage Bush to keep them there whether the Democrats fund the war or not, and who knows what he will do.
I even heard Joe Liebermann with my own ears say Bush should do that if the Democrats refuse to fund the war, I even did a post about it, titled "Joe Liebermann Proves Just What A Little Prick He Is". I heard him say this with my own ears on Meet The Press.
Democrats will have salvaged their chances of winning the ’08 elections, which if they win, then they can devote their agenda to ending the war on their terms
Sure, they can. Until the next 9/11. And then, Democrat or Republican, the president will have send the troops again.
If US troops withdraw from Iraq, the terrorists will go after them, even all the way to Kansas. You can run, but you can't hide. You don't want to fight them in Baghdad, fine. Then they will fight you in Peoria...
Oooohhh, the old "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here".
Sounds to me like you want us to stay there forever. Sorry, not going to happen. Besides, if they want to come after us, they will come after us, whether we stay in Iraq or not.
Besides, I am not advocating a sudden precipitous withdrawal, I'm just demanding competence in strategy and execution. Then I want us to get out. Of everywhere. Not just the Middle East. Everywhere. Europe. Asia. Africa. Latin America. Everywhere.
It's time for the fucking world to grow up and wipe it's own ass for a change.
Okay, I don't really buy the over-here-or-over-there argument either, but I'm not sure you can argue that the Iraqis got themselves into this mess!
I do agree that the Democrats would be wise to give Bush everything he wants- let him dig his own grave now, and maybe in a few years "President Obama" can fix this mess. Unfortunately though, I'm starting to get the feeling that the 'solution' the Republicans really want is some sort of permanent empire; not out of greed, but just because that's the only way to keep some control over the terrorists. I think the reason people get so worked up about 'timetables' is that there's really no end in sight.
Rufus, that's just the thing, they wouldn't be giving him everything he wants. Bush doesn't want all this funding going to making sure the troops are adequately trained, or for medical therapy, for VA hospitals and other veterans issues, and all the other "pork" they've inserted for farm subsidies.
Like I said, on balance it's an extremely well thought out and comprehensive bill, if it weren't for just that one poison pill which is obviously intended to force a political showdown.
You're right, though, the American people on the whole don't like the idea of the never-ending seeming aspect of this stupid ass war, and you can count me in on that.
Incompetence such as displayed by Bush and his Administration in regards to this war, should never be rewarded. Still, sometimes you have to suck it up and go the extra step of cleaning up somebody's mess and try to salvage something from it, while hoping such a fiasco is never repeated.
Post a Comment