If Friday’s 212-206 vote in the House of Representatives had gone the other way, I wonder what the Exploiter-in-Chief would have done with the busload of uniformed soldiers, wives and Sunday-best-dressed little girls that appeared behind him when he feigned outrage over the House giving him what he wanted. Proving that elections matter, the Democratic majority in the House, including 37 elected from very Republican districts, voted to set benchmarks for Iraqi government progress and to continue funding the illegal invasion until September 2008.
To hear the president and the remaining few “loyal Bushies” tell it, “the troops” will now be in danger because the Democrats want them to come home -- in an orderly fashion standing down as the Iraqi government stands up. (I believe the people who really are cheering the Democrats’ temporary victory are not the insurgents but the American generals and troops who now do see a light at the end of the tunnel of despair carved by the cowards who never wore a uniform but invented this war.)Bush accused the Democrats of irresponsibility by passing a bill that has no chance of becoming law just “to score political points.” The reason it won’t become law is that Bush will veto it – refusing to take the money he asked for. Then what? The money for “the troops” stops flowing. Canada or France, God forbid, will have to send boats to pick them up. Someone will be blamed. Probably “treasonous” Democrats already in the sights of the Rove smear artists. But we all know who the traitor to decency around here is.
The president’s ginned-up anger was the real attempt “to score political points.” Had three votes changed and the bill were defeated, what was he going to do with all those military stooge families he brought in? Read them the Pentagon inspector general’s report that nine Army officers, including as many as four generals, lied to the family of former pro football player and Army Ranger Pat Tillman who it turns out was killed by friendly fire?
Intriguing Question
I'm still trying to figure out how the president can claim executive privilege for documents that are not his but that were generated by and circulated among aides. The answer clearly lies with the Supreme Court, which, as you recall, invented novel legal arguments that would laughed out of every single law school in order to steal the 2000 election for Bush. (If you don’t think that happened, then recall that when it looked like Bush would legitimately lose, Sandra Day O’Connor complained to friends she would have to stay on the court until a Republican was elected.)
And I'm still trying to figure out how Bush can claim that making the documented liar Karl Rove testify under oath would prevent presidents from getting unvarnished advice when he claims he never to have received advice about the firing of federal prosecutors. When press secretary Tony Snow was asked this very question the other day, he replied that the answer “falls into the intriguing question category.”
They Decide All Right
Evangelicals went for Bush in 2004. Conservatives went for him. So did people identifying themselves as hardliners on Iraq and people who owne guns. Only two groups of voters gave Bush even more support than these groups. Republicans, naturally. And people who watch Fox News.
The latter groups voting 88 per cent for Bush and 7 percent for Kerry in the last presidential election. This could be why two-thirds of Fox viewers thought were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq years after it was proved otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment