Claire McCaskill Gives Bush a Blank Check
Claire McCaskill brought shame upon Missouri Democrats by joining the Republicans and giving Bush a blank check to continue his wreckless and feckless quagmire in Iraq. Rather than insisting upon some accountability with our tax dollars. I'm still glad she beat Talent, but, today, she was his moral twin, voting in lockstep with Kit Bond. She should be ashamed of herself. I'm ashamed of her.
posted by Dan at 5/22/2007 09:17:00 PM
16 Comments:
Yeah, I'm not really happy with her in general. There has to be someone better.
I'm not going to defend McCaskill, but until I have a good idea of what we expect to happen, and a better idea how we'll actually manage our exit, to call for a timetable isn't an appropriate thing to do.
I don't consider leaving Iraq "cut and running", but to simply support a timetable without some relatively sophisticated understanding of the implications, is repeating the same type of flawed thinking that got is there in the first place.
Don't get me wrong, I think Bush lied to the country, and we should have never invaded. But we should have learned that we need to think through our desisions.
I'm not seeing the critical thinking behind a public, published exit schedule just yet.
Mainstream, give me PROOF, that Bush lied to us when every intelligence community in the world thought there were WMD there. Or, quit the shit, ok.
Now, as to the present, which is all we CAN deal with, you bet we need think through our decisions. If the Iraq people don't want us there, then we should leave. Until then and until the surge has a chance to work, then we should support our troops and hold off for now. If and when that day comes that we know we have either failed or Iraq wants us out, then, the alternative better not be worse than than the current plan.
Travelingal -
You're wrong in your demand for PROOF. PROOF is what Bush should have had before he committed such a colossal blunder. He didn't have PROOF. All he had was a tiny bit of evidence, a whole lot of bad advice, and a horrific bloodlust and lack of respect for international norms.
Bush suspected there might be WMD in Iraq, as did most intelligence agencies. But Bush lied to the country and claimed he had solid evidence. He got Powell to go in front of the UN and misrepresent the "mobile labs".
Prior to Bush, I fully expected that my country, of which I am tremendously proud, would never invade another country without good reason. A suspicion is not good reason. When Bush called upon us to back a preemptive war, he warranted that there was good reason. There was not.
Now, 70% of Iraqis want a timetable for US withdrawal. Half of them approve of attacks on American troops.
Bush lied. American troops have died, and continue to die. It's all a horrible, horrible mistake, and now we need to work on getting ourselves out of it. Not three months from now, not six months from now, but NOW, we need to start working on our withdrawal.
I do not support giving Bush another chance. I do not trust the escalation. Bush has fired those in the military who oppose his ill-fated scheme. He is not to be trusted. He may or may not be a bad person, but he is demonstrably a horrible Commander in Chief.
Mainstream - why do you insist on a "relatively sophisticated understanding of the implications" of withdrawal, when we have no such understanding of the implications of staying? All we understand is that they want us out, they are killing our troops, and this horrible misadventure is costing us money that could go to far, far better uses.
Why should we dilly-dally before making our decisions? Staying the course is making a decision to stay the course. Surging is a decision to escalate the conflict. Setting a timetable, yes, is a decision, and it is the correct one.
Giving Bush a blank check is immoral. Allowing the worst Commander in Chief EVER to continue to waste American lives, Iraqi lives and my money is immoral.
We have PROOF that Bush is incapable of fixing the situation in Iraq. What kind of PROOF will it take to make you realize that our best strategy is to begin an orderly withdrawal? Now.
I'll give you some shit, Travelingual:
The Bush administration, and Bush specifically, explicitly discussed the priority of invading Iraq in Bush's first week in office, long before 9/11. Refer to Paul Oneill's book - Bush's first Treasury Secretary
Just about every, strike that, EVERY security expert regardless of their political orientation who is now familiar with the intelligence available at the time would have never advised making a case for WMDs
The military was unanimously against invading Iraq at the time we made the decision to do so
Colin Powell didn't trust the evidence, that's pretty clear
- Everybody in an advisory position to the president was advocating the domino theory of democracy in the middle east. Either that or they weren't challenging him. The short answer is that Bush did not tolerate any dissenting viewpoints. That’s crystal clear.
I don't even know I'm wasting my time. The evidence is overwhelming that it was a bad decision, and that evidence and facts were explicitly ignored in favor of ideology, by our President.
Our president who prides himself, time and time again, for "never negotiating with himself".
Colin Powell sat in front of the UN making a case for WMDs when he knew it was flawed, but he played the good soldier.
No one close to the president made any significant challenges to his wishes - because they new he never accepted criticism. Never. It's common knowledge.
So Travelingual, I call it lying;
I call it explicitly ignoring the facts in favor of ideology, but still telling the world facts were on our side when they weren’t
I call it betraying the public trust, which is quite frankly much worse;
and I call it a bad decision made by the worst president in American history..
And the shit that you try to hand us is a pathetic defense of the worst foreign disaster in our history.
So, I think you can shove the proof where the rest of your shit belongs. And, by the way, all of your shit hides behind the facade of plausible deniability.
The good news is that, except for a few right wing nutbags, no one's buying YOUR shit, Travelingual.
That’s some bad shit your selling, Travelingual.
Dan - you have a good point - I don't have anywhere near a sophisticated understanding of what happens if we stay.
Other than buying time for a negotiated peace.
I guess leaving Iraq carries the risk of much wider regional instability, and without us there we have no leverage to continue to help imporve stability in Iraq.
It looks like the only people outside of the administration who want us to stay is Al Qaeda-Iraq, who look to get scragged by the Sunnis if we leave as the target of preference. No one seems able to say what good we can accomplish--just vague threats that something might get worse if we leave. Sometimes you can't fix things even if you're the one who broke 'em. Steven Colbert:
"The Pottery Barn Rule. At Pottery Barn, if you knock over a lamp, you have to glue it back together, even if when your done it looks terrible and it doesn't work. Oh, and you have to stay in the store forever. Oh, and it's an exploding lamp."
Hmmm, I've been parsing this phrase 'support our troops' and I've determined that it's content-free.
I pay my taxes which, in theory, pay for said troops' salary, equipment, and training. Is this supporting the troops?
I want my troops to be the best trained, educated, rested, and respected soldiers in the world. Is this supporting the troops?
I want my troops to be used only as a last resort with clear military goals. Is this supporting the troops?
Further, I want my troops alive if they're not involved in activities defined in the preceding paragraphs. Is this supporting the troops?
So at what point is paying their salary, ensuring their continued operational readiness, and keeping them alive not supporting the troops? I'm confused.
Wow, Dan. What a post and what responses! Well, I'm with you, man. Those that can't feel which way the wind is blowing--and smell the stench of it, too, by the way--by now are so far lost, or just plain blind stupid, they will never find their way to any kind of reality.
Hows that Booberry Blue going down these days, travelingal? Need some sugar?
The iraqi parliament is set to approve a resolution calling for the exit of the U.S. and coalition forces - with timelines. That looks a lot like "standing up" to me, so let's roll up our gear and get the f#%k out already.
I can feel the love.
Thanks, Dan, for the good times, but I think the party's over for me on this blog.
Travelingal -
You're wrong on this one, but I hope you stick around. You make good points sometimes, and I hope you notice that my comments weren't a personal attack. Not that some of the other commenters weren't a little rough on you, but, when I comment on rightwing blogs, I get the same treatment. Personally, I enjoy the role of rattling their echo chambers.
I need my rightwingers to keep my on my toes, and provide a foil for my wit and wisdom . . .
Travelingual needs to grow some cajones.
"Mainstream, give me PROOF, that Bush lied to us when every intelligence community in the world thought there were WMD there. Or, quit the shit, ok."
I didn't quit the shit, just gave a little back.
It's amazing that when usually-loud-mouthed conservatives are challenged with a little information, and are brought out front and center with objective information, they do an incredible shrinking act.
Amazing.
travelingal, I don't know what you expect. The administration (except Darth Cheney) admits that none of the reasons touted for invasion were accurate. Most of the world recognizes that, at best, Bushco ignored evidence/intelligence that didn't fit their preconceptions, and more likely intentionally twisted the information. It is impossible to deny the incompetence, greed, ideological blindness and corruption that have marked the conduct of the invasion and occupation--total lack of planning, ignoring the military, staffing based on political loyalty, billions of dollars lost and unaccounted for. Tens (quite possibly hundreds) of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees (many of them the middle class that Iraq will desperately need when we finally get the hell out). No plan, no definition of victory. The ongoing Bushisms--they will follow us home (Osama found us once, did he lose his fucking atlas? not that he's in the Iraq mess), fighting Al Qaeda (a minor, local, nationalistic player in Iraq, hated almost as much as us and headed for extinction as soon as we're gone), we'll stand down--oh, wait, that's inoperative-no, it's back! Bush doesn't respect the gov't we set up, doesn't get the sectarian divides, doesn't care. As long as we stay the course.
Yeah, some of us are unhappy. And if the best you've got is some whine about giving up our leverage--having immeasurably strengthened Iran and Syria, gotten the Saudis pissed, destabilized the region, eliminated the only secular government in the middle east, all in addition to the general carnage--some of us think you should come up with something real or shut up. Loyalty to the boy king is just not good enough to justify this abomination any more.
I pretty much expected this inaction from the dems. Despite their lip service during the campaigns, we're still talking about politicians here. Like bloggers, they tend to be a vector value. They have an equal magnitude of assholiness, just in a different direction.
What somebody needs to do is step up with some leadership and provide a legitimate plan for Iraq. Whoever can do that stands a good chance of success in the upcoming elections. From the Democratic bench, I'd say Bill Richardson has the best shot.
"Like bloggers, they tend to be a vector value. They have an equal magnitude of assholiness, just in a different direction."
Damn, emaw, I wish I thought you were wrong. I gotta say, in this case--with the public where it is, with the '06 election results based on Iraq as the top concern--I'm still a little surprised and disappointed. I'm old enough to know better, too.
Post a Comment
<< Home