We don't have to votes to stop the war
Jerrold Nadler was on Ed Schultz's radio show yesterday, mostly talking about the good work he is doing on illegal use of National Security Letters by the FBI. Unfortunately, he repeated the Democratic talking point that they do not have the votes to stop the war.
Well, I do not buy it. The Democrats are saying that the veto and the insufficient majority means they cannot just pass whatever legislation they want. That part is true. But what is wrong is saying that they do not have the votes to stop the war. They do have the votes to stop the war, they just cannot do it by the means they would prefer.
They passed a bill to fund the war, but with a timetable. Bush vetoed it. This left the Democrats with 3 alternatives. 1) Keep sending a funding bill with timetables to Bush. 2) Do nothing and let the war go unfunded. 3) Roll over and write a blank check just like the Republican controlled congress.
Look, if the Democrats were scared about being portrayed as not supporting the troops, all they have to do is point at the bill funding the troops that THEY passed and that BUSH vetoed. It is bad enough that they chose alternative 3), but then to insult our intelligence by saying "we don't have the votes" is despicable. The slim majority does close off some means of acting to end the war, but it doesn't close off options 1) or 2).
In any case, why are the Democrats so eager to roll over and play dead for the Republican minority's tactics when they didn't do shit when they were in the minority? Why weren't the Democratic war Senators blocking cloture on all the blank check votes from 2003-2006? They could have been pushing timetables all that time. If they had, they might have got them, or they might have set the stage to get them now that they are in the majority.
If you really want to stop the war, you better think twice about voting for Edwards and Clinton, who voted for the war, or Obama, who seems to be triangulating his antiwar position. There are two clear cut antiwar candidates out for the Democrats, Kucinich and Gravel, and Kucinich will get my vote because he has been voting and speaking consistently against the war.
Well, I do not buy it. The Democrats are saying that the veto and the insufficient majority means they cannot just pass whatever legislation they want. That part is true. But what is wrong is saying that they do not have the votes to stop the war. They do have the votes to stop the war, they just cannot do it by the means they would prefer.
They passed a bill to fund the war, but with a timetable. Bush vetoed it. This left the Democrats with 3 alternatives. 1) Keep sending a funding bill with timetables to Bush. 2) Do nothing and let the war go unfunded. 3) Roll over and write a blank check just like the Republican controlled congress.
Look, if the Democrats were scared about being portrayed as not supporting the troops, all they have to do is point at the bill funding the troops that THEY passed and that BUSH vetoed. It is bad enough that they chose alternative 3), but then to insult our intelligence by saying "we don't have the votes" is despicable. The slim majority does close off some means of acting to end the war, but it doesn't close off options 1) or 2).
In any case, why are the Democrats so eager to roll over and play dead for the Republican minority's tactics when they didn't do shit when they were in the minority? Why weren't the Democratic war Senators blocking cloture on all the blank check votes from 2003-2006? They could have been pushing timetables all that time. If they had, they might have got them, or they might have set the stage to get them now that they are in the majority.
If you really want to stop the war, you better think twice about voting for Edwards and Clinton, who voted for the war, or Obama, who seems to be triangulating his antiwar position. There are two clear cut antiwar candidates out for the Democrats, Kucinich and Gravel, and Kucinich will get my vote because he has been voting and speaking consistently against the war.
posted by Tommy Times at 6:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home