Message to Congress: Don't water-down Iraq bill

By -
There have been all kinds of rumors flying about that the bill the Democratic Congress is going to send to Bush will be stripped of time tables for withdrawal. This would be stupid, stupid, stupid. Why are Democrats doing anything that will give them more "ownership" of an occupation that is stupid, wrong, and hugely unpopular? Who the fuck are these "Blue Dog" Democrats who want to have "advisory language" or "goals" instead of "get out by date X" provisions in the bill? Who is their constituency? They can't be catering to voter sentiment, because voter sentiment is against Bush and against this occupation. Are they beholden to some interest group that has a stake in prolonging our involvement in the catastrophe? Or are they just so bamboozled by the Washington D.C. culture that they still feel they can't do anything sensible without looking weak? I can't believe they actually think our occupation has any chance of successfully achieving anything in Iraq.

I just don't understand it. I can understand political compromise on various issues because some Democrats come from conservative districts. But on the Iraq occupation, public opinion is pushing the other way: people want Congress to stand up to the President more. If someone can explain the dynamics at work here, I'd very much appreciate it.

Time to start thinking about running Democratic primary challengers against some people. I knew Republicans would have a hard time accepting the lessons of November 2006. But why are Democrats having a hard time doing so? Is our political culture that dysfunctional? (I can just picture Atrios answering: Yes.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Snarking The Odyssey (with AD&D)

By -
Image
WARNING: Those of you who are accustomed to pithy political remarks here on Internal Monologue should brace yourselves for a major dose of gaming geekitude. Here's a link to one "Jamie R." who does a very snarky close reading of Homer's The Odyssey (HT: Mad Latinist via email). I've only read book 1, but it's pretty funny so far. An excerpt: Tell me, O muse, of that ingenious hero who travelled far and wide after he had sacked the famous town of Troy. Many cities did he visit, and many were the nations with whose manners and customs he was acquainted; moreover he suffered much by sea while trying to save his own life and bring his men safely home; but do what he might he could not save his men… Sooooo, he’s in charge, and everybody dies. Tell me, O muse, of that ingenious hero and his colossal failure. What? … for they perished through their own sheer folly in eating the cattle of the Sun-god Hyperion; so the god prevented them from ever rea
Read more

Where is 56th and Wabasha? "Meet Me in the Morning" Dylan Mystery Solved

By -
Image
Short version The lyric is not "Fifty-sixth and Wabasha", it is actually "Fifty-six and Wabasha", referring to the intersection of old Minnesota Highway 56 and Wabasha Street in Saint Paul, Minnesota. If you listen, you can hear Dylan sing "fifty-six", rather than "fifty-sixth", particularly on the take that was released as the B-side to "Duquesne Whistle". Minnesota Highway 56 no longer intersects Wabasha Street, but from 1963 to 1974 it did intersect Wabasha Street, at what is now (in Feb. 2021) the intersection of George Street and Cesar Chavez Street in St. Paul, or possibly South Wabasha & Cesar Chavez.  Long Version "Meet Me in the Morning" is the first song on side two of Bob Dylan's celebrated 1975 album  Blood on the Tracks. In the opening lines of the song, according to the lyrics on Bob Dylan's official site (https://www.bobdylan.com/songs/meet-me-morning/), the narrator invites the listener to a rendez
Read more

Victim or perpetrator? How about both!

By -
Remember in the movie Adaptation , the main character's brother has this idea for a screenplay called The Three? It's about a detective trying to track down a serial killer before he kills his next victim. Pretty standard, right? The twist is that the detective, serial killer, and victim, are all actually the same person . Whoa, dude. Fight Club 's got nothin' on that one. Well, this isn't quite that weird. But apparently, Utah legal authorities are somewhat perplexed by a situation in which a 13-year-old girl and her 12-year-old boyfriend are both simultaneously the perpetrators and victims of the same crime: having sex with each other (HT: Feministing ): Utah Supreme Court justices acknowledged Tuesday that they were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old Ogden girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act - in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend. The girl was put in this odd position be
Read more