Gates: Capitulation not enough

Consider this Part II of yesterday's diary, in which President Fucko McDickhead complained that Congress wasn't capitulating to him fast enough.

Today, SecDef Gates gets in on the act.

The top of the story is about how the escalation is working so well that we may be able to have - um, the troop withdrawals next year that we are forced to have anyway. But he's going to claim it as a success anyway, because that's what BushCo does.

But he makes sure to get in a whack at his enablers:

Gates also criticized Congress' choppy funding for the wars. He said while the Pentagon welcomed the recent appropriation, it is less money than needed.

...

He said the military may run out of money by spring. That "requires us to make short term plans and short terms solutions," he said.

"I hope we don't have to have a replay this spring," Gates said.

Paying for the wars in Iraq in Afghanistan in fits and starts undermines military planning and risks the gains made by American troops over the past year, he said during a Pentagon news conference.

Congress recently provided $70 billion for combat operations, only half of what the President requested.

The only tax money you or any of your fascist buddies should be getting is room and board in jail. I'd count my blessings.

But anyway, thanks Harry; thanks Nancy. Keep on capitulating; keep giving Mr 24% his money with no strings attached. One of these days, he or one of his minions is going to get up there and say, "Thanks to our Democratic friends, who have transcended partisanship and have worked together with us for the good of the country. You should all remember their efforts; they are true patriots."

Really. It's going to happen.

•  Any day now ...

  Really ...

  by RickMassimo on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:12:35 AM PDT

  •  gotta rec you for Fucko McDickhead

    I am sobbing with laughter while typing this.  HEH!!!!!

    by bubbanomics on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:16:31 AM PDT

  •  ROTFLMAO!!!

    I'm recommending this diary just because of the shrub pejorative. That's effin' great!!!!

    by SteveLCo on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:24:49 AM PDT

•  Face it, folks...

  The Dems have shown little interest and even less ability to stop this war.  It would seem that someone has calculated that keeping this disaster going is the best way to make party gains in '08.  I'm profoundly disappointed in them, but my options are poor.

  OTOH, I saw a good bumper sticker today:  The road to hell is paved with Republicans.

  by beemerr90s on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:25:15 AM PDT

  •  I'm afraid you're right.

    If they couldn't ram through SCHIP, they're not going to do anything.

    by RickMassimo on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:26:47 AM PDT

  •  It's a pretty sickening choice.

    Are they that cynical that they'll allow untold billions to disappear down the rat hole and untold numbers of people to be killed for political expediency, or do they really support this pathological foreign policy?

    by strangely enough on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:54:18 AM PDT

    •  Can thye magically override a veto?

      I'd like to know that. I know that the pro-defunders argue that "not passing a bill" means that Bush will have to withdraw the troops, but I am convinced that Bush will keep the troops even if the funding disappears.

      by oceanstar17 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:53:20 AM PDT

      •  Of course they can't.

        But, does that simply mean they must throw more money on the fire, no strings attached? "Capitulate on everything" does not seem like a winning strategy.
        And, as for withdrawal, that's coming. Simple addition would tell us there aren't going to be enough troops to stay there at present levels for long. The level of "stability" is artificial if not false. It is simply a matter of the Shiites waiting us out.
        And the ultimate question: does alienating the majority of people who want the occupation to end carry that high of a political return? '08 is not a god-given right of ascension for the Democrats.

        by strangely enough on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 01:26:49 PM PDT

        •  I think you're honestly wrong about the

          "withdrawal coming" soon as long as the Republicans are in the White House. As long as Bush is in the White House there is no way that the troops will come home. Maybe there might be some "cosmetic" reductions, but I don't see a significant withdrawal happening. Finally, while you are right that a majority of people "want the occupation to end", there isn't a consensus on how to leave either.

          by oceanstar17 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 03:09:10 PM PDT

  •  I disagree

    The reason why the Democrats aren't going to "defund the war" is because they don't want to be blamed for "not funding the troops". They don't want to be blamed for troop deaths and injuries. And if they "defund the war" all Bush has to do is show pictures of dead soldiers, coupled with sobbing parents and injured soldiers coming on TV blaming their loved ones' deaths and/or their own permanent disabling injuries on the Democrats. While Americans have turned against the war, polling also indicates that there is mixed opinion on how to leave Iraq. The Democrats aren't going to put themselves in a position where Bush and the media can blame them for troop deaths.

    I honestly think that many people here had unrealistic expectations after the 2006 elections about what the Democrats could vis a vis the war and other issues. Although they are in the majority, they are not able to override vetoes and stop most filibusters. So, in terms of ending the war and passing other "progressive legislation", their options are limited.

    The best analogy that I can use is the period between 1994 and 1996. The first example is the welfare reform bill. Gingrich sent Clinton two bills which he vetoed. After the second veto, realizing that Clinton had the advantage, Gingrich sent a more moderate bill, one that didn't include the draconian reductions that the first two did. Clinton signed it.

    The second example involves the government shutdown. Gingrich refused to compromise. Clinton called his bluff, knowing that Gingrich didn't have the votes to override his veto. When the public saw that government employees had to go without paychecks during the 1995 Christmas season, they turned against Gingrich. When the voters saw visible consequences, such as museums, national parks, and other non-essential agencies clothing, they became very angry. Clinton eventually won that standoff and Gingrich's popularity never recovered.

    The Democrats aren't going to defund the war because they don't want to suffer the repudiation that Gingrich endured. They know that, once a stalemate happens, anything that happens to the troops becomes "their fault" in the eyes of the media, Bush, and the public. In addition, much unlike Clinton, who was facing re-election, Bush has no incentive to compromise because he is not on the ballot in 2008. He doesn't have to face the voters again, so he has no incentive to come to the table. He can truly refuse to do anything because he knows that the votes aren't there to override his veto and/or impeach him.

    Finally, even if they "defunded the war", or not passed a budget, I don't think that Bush would leave Iraq. I don't think that Bush would withdraw any troops from Iraq, absent a veto override.

    by oceanstar17 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:52:16 AM PDT

    •  Well, I think they could do much more

      and I think they CHOOSE not to.  If they aren't choosing that path, they are doing an awfully poor job of fighting.

      Your argument makes some sense with regard to war funding, but I can't fully buy it.  (I CERTAINLY can't buy it with most other issues.) I believe if the Dems held their position to defund (like the POTUS holds his position, because he can see that the Dems have capitulated over and over and over again on this issue and most others) they would bring this to a head and MAKE the argument hold until there is some kind of compromise.  We have gotten NOTHING, as far as I can tell.

      I admit, it's a tough place to be, and W holds most of the cards.  I can live with that.  But it is my opinion and observation that the Dems could fight a lot harder than they do, and certainly a lot smarter than they do.

      by beemerr90s on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:27:27 PM PDT

      •  The one flaw in your argument is that Bush has

        no incentive to compromise. He is not running for re-election because he is term-limited. He knows that the Democrats lack the votes to override him and they don't have the votes for impeachment either. So what incentive does he have to "compromise"? None whatsoever.

        Bush knows that, even if the public has turned against the war, they don't want to see our soldiers and Marines dragged into the middle of the political debate. And Bush knows that, through the help of both the conservative and mainstream media, coupled with the Democrats' inability to launch an effective PR operation, he will be able to portray the Democrats as "putting politics" above the troops' well-being. So, in any stalemate, Bush knows that he holds all the cards.

        Again think of the standoff between Gingrich and Clinton back in 1995/1996. When government employees endured furloughs over Christmas the public turned against Gingrich. Bush would do the exact same thing with the soldiers and Marines in Iraq. Even without funding I don't think that Bush would withdraw the troops. In fact I can safely say that it's clear that, short of an override, Bush has no intention of bringing the troops home from Iraq.

        In addition the other thing is that Bush would use loopholes and raid funding from other programs to keep the troops there, even if on just a shoestring budget. He would have the war operate on a very limited budget to make these political points. Against such a backdrop I just don't see how the Democrats would win that political debate, especially as the troops in Iraq suffer because of having to fight a large war on a very limited budget.

        Finally, as I've said above, what incentive does Bush have to "compromise"? None whatsoever. The only way that he would be forced to compromise is if significant numbers of House and Senate Republicans, sensing defeat in 2008, decided to join Democrats in forcing Bush to accept compromise. However, based on what I've seen, I just don't see that happening.

        So back to my original point I just don't understand what people here expected after the 2006 elections. I didn't expect significant changes due to the slim majorities.

        by oceanstar17 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:48:47 PM PDT

        •  You make a decent argument, but

          only for the war funding. (And I'm not fully convinced.)  They couldn't have held firm on AMT?  There would be no bloody bodies to point to there.  Appointment of Mukasy, and others?  Kyl-Leiberman?  Without Dodd, we'd likely have already passed telcom immunity.  

          The most amazing capitulation to me is the failure to move investigations forward.  The ignoring of subpeonas, the slow-walking of bringing witnesses, the meally-mouthed "stern letters" that keep kicking the ball down the road are beyond infuriating.  IMHO, if these had been pursued in a timely manner, Pubs might have been weakened enough to have Dems get more pushed through.  And my anger would be substantially less if it looked like they were trying to uphold the Constitution, regardless of their failure to affect the war.

          But it's easy to play "what if"...

          by beemerr90s on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 01:10:16 PM PDT

          •  Well

            I agree with you about not aggressively pushing investigations. Like you I am disappointed in their not investigating aggressively.

            by oceanstar17 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 03:11:22 PM PDT

•  The Camel's nose

  The old expression is true about the Camel's nose.

  In this case, the Dems capitulated too many times so now it's not just the 50B here or 70B there. Now it's total funding everytime they ask and then it's give them even more than what they asked for. In other words, they need a blank check.

  Harry "it's in the Mail" Reid let the camel into the tent.

  by DevonTexas on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:28:56 AM PDT