-->

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Douchey Dems Digest

War funding continuance passage edition

Larry Everest:
Instead of ending the war, this bill is an effort to pressure the Bush regime to adjust its strategy in Iraq and the region to better preserve U.S. imperialist hegemony and stamp out anti-U.S. resistance, Islamic fundamentalism in particular. It's also designed to rein in and paralyze the millions who are increasingly angry and disillusioned with the war and the Bush regime, and channel these feelings into support for a different (Democratic Party) strategy and tactics in waging that war. So while talking of ending the war , the Democrats offer a plan to continue the war in Iraq, expand the war in Afghanistan, and give Bush a green light to attack Iran!


Arthur Silber:
Of course, the national Democrats and the Bush crazies share the identical assumptions that drive our foreign policy, one dedicated to ensuring world hegemony by and for the United States. Hillary Clinton speaks of "'remaining vital national security interests in Iraq' that would require a continuing deployment of American troops" -- "continuing" as in indefinite or permanent, phrases that could have been lifted from one of Crazy Cheney's speeches -- or from one of Crazy McCain's. And all the prominent Democrats agree that a potentially nuclear-armed Iran -- lying at least five or even ten years in the future -- would be the greatest threat "we" face. For these unapologetic, murdering imperialists, this possible future danger necessitates that we leave "all options on the table" now -- which means only that we reserve the "right" to launch yet another unprovoked war of aggression against another non-existent threat.


Matt Taibbi:
My sense of this whole ballet from the start has been that with each passing season, as the antiwar rhetoric increases both among the public and in Washington, we'll see a corresponding increase in both financial and personnel commitment in the Iraq theater. The logic here is irresistible; Bush will not preside over what he perceives to be a surrender, and the Democrats will not cast a vote "against the troops" in an election season. So what we'll get is a lot of what we just saw -- non-binding antiwar votes hitched to troop increases and/or "short-term" funding boosts. It's worth noting that the same political logic that led the Bush White House to fund the war as an emergency long after it ceased to be an unexpected expenditure will now appeal to the Democrats, and for the same reason; so long as the money is in an "emergency" bill, they will be able to pretend, before voters, that the commitment is temporary.

What worries me about this state of affairs is that presidents don't like to see military losses land on their watch. If a Democrat wins in '08, bet on it, an excuse will be found to keep the troops there. The first day after her inauguration, when Hillary Clinton wakes up with a champagne hangover to hear Mark Daley (or whoever her chief of staff ends up being) tell her that 67 Marines have been slaughtered in a raid outside Ramadi, she is going to be powerfully tempted to prove that she has the stones to deal out the necessary payback. She'll ask for 10,000 extra troops and six months to "stabilize" the situation before initiating a withdrawal.


On to '08.. and the end of the world.

No comments: