Green Greenwald wrote:
At the beginning of this year, when the Democrats took over Congress, it would have been unthinkable — truly — to imagine the Congress expressly authorizing the use of military force against Iran. It was always certainly a strong possibility that the administration would find a way to provoke a war with Iran and then argue that they need no further authorization on the ground that the current Iraq AUMF implicitly authorizes them to defend our mission by attacking Iran.
Stranger in a Strange Land wrote that Jim Webb gets it:
I share Jim Webb’s concern that, given the opportunity, Dick Cheney will not hesitate to use the vote on yesterday’s amendment as part of his justification to attack Iran should that opportunity come to pass.
The opportunity, as Greenwald points out, is the continuing Iraq Debacle. And Jim Webb will not do what must be done, not fund the Iraq Debacle. Which means Jim Webb does NOT get it. No Democrat in Congress can truly claim to be doing all they can to end the Iraq Debacle and to prevent an Iran Debacle if they continue to support Bush’s war by funding it. Webb is supporting the Iraq Debacle as he votes to continue to fund it. More.
The Presidential candidates in the Senate on funding Bush’s Iraq Debacle:
. . . Congress has an obligation here. . . . The Constitution gives the Congress of the United States a unique power, and that is the power of the purse. As long as we continue drafting these lengthy resolutions and amendments here, talking about timelines and dates, we're not getting to the fundamental power that exists in the Congress. And that is to terminate the funding of this effort here, give us a new direction.
I hope and will work diligently in the Senate to bring an end to this war before I take office. And I think that it is very important at this stage, understanding how badly the president's strategy has failed, that we not vote for funding without some timetable for this war.
I have voted against funding this war, and I will vote against funding this war as long as it takes.
MR. RUSSERT: If, in fact, the president does not accept a firm withdrawal date, will you vote to cut off funding?
SEN. BIDEN: . . . I will vote, as long as there’s a single troop in there that we are taking out or maintaining, either way I will vote for the money necessary to protect them, period.
Joe Biden can not stand up to George Bush and the Republicans. He will not vote to end the war. He can not be the Democratic nominee.
And as long as he takes the Biden position, Jim Webb most assuredly does NOT get it.
90 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
“gets it.”
on WHY they keep funding the war.
Many suggestions have been put forth
Stupidity.
Complicity in wanting to keep the war machine funded.
Complicity due to being accessories after the AUMF.
Pure cowardice
Stupidity.
Pure political calculation that the best way to get more power is to make a show of opposing Bush while giving him more rope.
Stupidity.
All of the above.
What do you think?
should explain to kids in congress…
Sen. Robert Byrd
God help us all right now. A history I will never be proud of, only be able to say I stayed an American kicking and screaming. I seem to be getting a constant feeding of late from surrounding still in the military military officers that maybe Bush IS a visionary…….Sweet Jesus lay off just a little bit of that Zoloft they are having to feed all of you in uniform right now KAY?
It looks like Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector just may, in part, agree with Jim Webb:
and…
Ritter goes on to say…
And finally I’ll leave this quote and let everyone make up their own minds:
Scott Ritter was certainly – excuse the expression – dead on the money about Iraq in the run-up to this war. He’s also very knowledgeable about the region and American politics and certainly no friend of this administration. I hope he’s wrong but I wouldn’t put my money on it. I would encourage everyone to read Ritter’s complete essay in the second link above on Truthdig.
biden on MTP
now, i understand, being from delaware, that you have to pass everything joe says through ALL of your filters…but is it true that the president already has enough money to continue the war… ???
cause joe seems to think…and again, its joe…that the supplementals are all happily being applied to things that are making life better for our troops, who would be there whether the funding bills passed or not, and that passing them keeps the troops safer. of course im paraphrasing…
biden’s son beau is scheduled to go to iraq next year…so you’d think he would get out the old wrench and screw his head on straight…and YES, sir..i emailed his office today…
He’s a warrior and conservative so he won’t not fund as he ‘supports the troops’. When he speaks of the danger in passing the Iran insanity he isn’t wrong because of his not defunding votes, it makes him even more credible on this issue as he can see the military implications that lie ahead. Both parties seem enthralled with the neocon vision of remaking the region.
As per the debates our candidates seem to have no intention of leaving. I hear various degrees of using diplomacy but nothing about restoring the Iraqis sovereignty just Embassy and such. None will take even nukes off the table in Iran, so I’m wrong here why in the hell would they vote for this and why won’t they take the necessary step to stop this and war?
Hooray! I’ve made the big time, baby…
Actually, after reading, I know you’re not ‘calling me out’, but it was fun to think so for a minute.
For clarity sake, for anyone here who missed it, my point is Jim Webb gets it on the recent Lieberman-Kyl amendment. My diary was about why I believe it was an insideous POS bill – one that should have been voted down from our side. Jim Webb voted ‘NO’ on this bill, and gave excellent reasons for doing so, IMO.
As to funding, he has some work to do.
As do Clinton and Obama – IMO because they waited to see which way the wind was blowing before voting last time.
Dodd has impressed me most on the funding issue. I’m warming to Dodd.
However, my fondest dream would have been to see any one of these representatives stand up and say the right thing on IMPEACHMENT. Dodd, Clinton, Obama, Webb, Biden & a whole bunch more of them are a big disappointment here.
But that ship appears to have sailed, and now we’re left with the defunding opportunity.
Any senator who votes to fund the war going forward doesn’t get it, I agree.
Cheers.
But anyone who thinks that it would not be possible for Bush to invade Iran even if we now defunded Iraq is suffering from an impoverished imagination. By the way — again — if you want to see what cards Bush has left to play to justify invasions and bombings, you have to look not only at the 2002 AUMF, but also the 2001 AUMF. Is it beyond Bush to assert an Iran-AQ connection, however absurd? If not, that’s all he needs.
I mean, you come with this big reputation. I arrived on daily Kos as you were leaving. OOooh watch out for Armando! Then, here, there was that civility thing….
And here you are, writing sensible diaries that I agree with!
either. Nothing makes sense in the maze were in. My point was that regardless of Webb’s refusal to not fund, he is credible as to the danger of the Bushies attacking Iran, and the danger of providing Cheney with fuel for his fire. As for the AUFM I believe Webb tried to introduce a bill restricting the AUFM, because he feared it would be used to attack Iran. How can the AUFM be altered or repealed, or defunding be applied if congress won’t even try, other then feigning opposition and then allowing this craziness on the floor.
The Democrats do not offer any solutions instead they too seem hell bent on the same policies as the neocons, remaking the region though occupation which means endless war. What else explains this bill, and their refusal to even try to use the tools provided to stop it.
that defunding will be a moot point. From every indication I’ve seen – without fail – they show no sign of doing what’s right to end this war, no matter what the method(s).
I’ve got 5 bucks that says we’ll be yammering about this (and more!) when the next president is elected.
It’s sort of like saying “This is the best way to skin a cat!” when we don’t even have a cat to skin.