Shailagh Murray and Jonathan "Fuck Brad DeLong" Weisman report that Democrats have caved in to Bush *already*. I was shocked and appalled by "Democrats" but, after reading the article past the jump, I am unshocked and appalled by Weisman.
It turns out that the Democrats who offer "first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq." do not include nancy Pelosi "Pelosi is also reluctant to embrace such a compromise until she sees how far congressional Republicans are willing to bend." or David Obey "Already, liberal Democrats think that public opinion and circumstances in Iraq are on their side, and they view benchmarks alone as far too weak. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (Wis.) has repeatedly told Democratic leaders that he would not report a war funding bill out of his committee that he could not support."
So who exactly are the Democrats who are backing down and offering to completely give up as their *first* concession ? One clearly is Steny Hoyer who has gone public and split the caucus. Harry Reid may or may not be siding with Hoyer against Pelosi. Murray and Weisman report that he outlined a measure, but didn't bother to say what it was. The only Democrat whose proposal they quote is Hoyer who may be majority leader but better remember that Pelosi is not a Hastert.
Finally they declare in the own voice that congress must give in to Bush
"While deadlines for troop withdrawals had to be dropped from the spending bill"
Who decided that deadlines *had* to be dropped ? Murray and Weisman are not quoting anyone in this passage. They are declaring on their own authority as WAPO journalists that deadlines must be dropped. So it has been written so it shall be done.
Check the context below; I really am not exaggerating. Years of dictating to Democrats have driven the Washington Post staff insane and caused them to be profoundly confused about the US Constitution. Just let me refresh their memories
article 1 section 7 "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills" that is to say until Obey and Pelosi knuckle under, the Democrats have not backed down.
Full context for command to the US congress from Murray and Weisman excercising their power under the 69th amendment which declares anything published on page A1 of the Washington post to supersede anything written in the US Constitution
But a new dynamic also is at work, with some Republicans now saying [snip]
While deadlines for troop withdrawals had to be dropped from the spending bill, such language is likely to appear in a defense policy measure that is expected to reach the House floor in two weeks, just when a second war funding bill could be ready for a House vote. Democrats want the next spending measure to pass before Congress recesses on May 25 for Memorial Day weekend.
Beyond that, Democrats remain deeply divided over how far to give in to the White House.
Update:
Greg Sargent notes that Pelosi and Reid's office say that Weisman is totally full of it.
Weisman responds
That is very interesting, since I was told in no uncertain terms by one of her aides that the withdrawal dates had to go, since they could not stand by language Bush would never sign. That was cofirmed by another senior leadership aide and two members of the leadership.
I can say with no reluctance whatsoever that we stand by the story. By the way, nobody has contacted me about it. That should tell you a lot.
Sargent notes that Weisman is not, in fact, standing by the story that Democrats have offered the concession to Bush. A not for attribution quote is different from an offer. I'd say that Pelosi should be interested in finding out if one of her aids is really undermining her negotiating strategy, but that Weisman is clearly completely irresponsible and dishonest.
Note that the "had to go" assertion now ascribed to an anonymous aid was the one stated in Murray and Weisman's own voice in the article. I would guess that their confusion about whether or not they are legislators is due to the fact that the view was shared with them on double super secret don't attribute this in any way to any human or other sentient being background and that Weisman has, among other things, semi burned a source.
Why the hell is he reporting for the Washington Post ?
6 comments:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/03/opinion/l03iraq.html
Is It Time to Leave Iraq?
To the Editor:
"Empty Words on Iraq":
My son, a 19-year-old American marine, is scheduled to be sent on the "deadly fool's errand" to Iraq in September. I live with constant fear that he, too, will be pointlessly injured, maimed or killed in this "obvious quagmire."
Unspeakable horrors, as in the town of Haditha, are creating victims of both innocent Iraqis and young Americans being exploited for their patriotic ideals by leaders who support the war but don't, in fact, support the troops.
I have opposed the war since its beginning. Now, three years on, with my own son's participation in it looming, I'm living the ultimate nightmare where I'm screaming and no one — but no one — is listening.
Donna J. Anton
Hayle, England, June 2, 2006
anne
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/opinion/l18iraq.html
The Relentless Tragedy Called Iraq
To the Editor:
"Insurgent Bombs Directed at G.I.'s Increase in Iraq":
I can't help but compare your headline with President Bush's bizarre remarks on Wednesday: "There's some good people in our country who believe we should cut and run. They're not bad people when they say that, they're decent people":
"President Joins in G.O.P. Attacks on Democrats About Terrorism."
You better believe I'm a decent person — and a decent mother whose 19-year-old United States Marine son is being deployed to Iraq next month to face a deadly, targeted anti-American insurgency that has nothing to do with the "war on terror."
Why should my son, or any other mother's son, be sacrificed in a mounting civil war because it's not politically advantageous for the Bush administration to admit that its Iraq policy has failed?
My decency is suffused with bitterness.
Donna J. Anton
Hayle, England, Aug. 17, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/opinion/l10iraq.html
This Time, a True Strategy for Iraq?
To the Editor:
"Quagmire of the Vanities":
Paul Krugman is right: gambling on the Iraq war is much easier "when the lives at stake are those of other people's children." Except that it is my son, a 20-year-old United States marine stationed in Falluja, whose life is being gambled with.
It is my son whose blood may yet protect the egos of men who won't admit that they were wrong. And it is my son whose 3,000-plus comrades-in-service have already paid the ultimate price for fighting another nation's civil war.
After four years of pointless, fruitless, uninstigated combat, if President Bush indeed escalates the "sacrifice" of other parents' beloved children — against all reason, against the will of the electorate and without any personal sacrifice to call his own — it would not be vanity. It is called tyranny.
Donna J. Anton
Hayle, England, Jan. 8, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/opinion/l12herbert.html
Is This 'Supporting the Troops'?
To the Editor:
My 20-year-old son is nearing the end of his first deployment to Iraq with the United States Marines. Only a few days ago, we learned that he received a commendation for initiative and bravery for pulling wounded and dead Iraqi soldiers out of a bus hit by a roadside bomb during a recent midnight convoy.
Specifically, he was recognized for "tirelessly moving multiple wounded Iraqis to the casualty collection point and loading them on the medivac helicopters ... and also volunteering to help collect the dead and ensuring that they were evaluated."
It's bad enough that my son is risking his life fighting a war that was waged on lies and deception. How infinitely more galling it is to realize that his value to the Bush administration wouldn't even merit decent care at Walter Reed if he were wounded or disabled.
Bob Herbert is right about the troops being shortchanged: it's something I never thought that America would do either.
My son has been commended for extending a degree of professionalism, respect and devotion to duty in aiding wounded Iraqi soldiers that the United States government doesn't extend to its own troops.
The horror, the horror.
Donna J. Anton
Hayle, England, March 8, 2007
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903EED9163EF930A15756C0A9629C8B63
The Hawks on Iraq, And My Lost Son
To the Editor:
In ''The Hawks Loudly Express Their Second Thoughts,'' you note that the shapers of thoughts and architects of the war now have troubling doubts about their enthusiastic support of the invasion of Iraq. How sad for them.
I am the mother of Sgt. Sherwood Baker of the Pennsylvania National Guard, soldier 720. That number is seared on my soul now, along with the screams and despair of my family and the wind carrying the sound of taps above the weeping crowd at the grave site of my son.
To me and mine, the consequences of the failed judgment and outright lies of the Bush administration and its apologists and spokesmen are not just becoming ''depressed'' or ''angst-ridden.'' We have lost our brave and beloved son, who was ordered to the war these folks dreamed of and hoped for.
The explosion that killed my son in Baghdad will go on in our lives forever. Sherwood gave the full measure of his responsibility as an American citizen doing his duty for an administration that betrayed him.
CELESTE ZAPPALA
Philadelphia, May 17, 2004
John Murtha, by the way, is suggesting limited funding periods, which may prove the only effective compromise. However, the Democratic bill strikes me and I will argue this at a late dinner as an important precedent in regaining a Congressional check or balance on the Presidency. I do not for a moment think the process has been in vain for now or in future.
anne
Post a Comment