The Dems Own the Wars (again)
June 19, 2008
This morning’s headline says it all: “Bipartisan Accord on War Funding Bill.” Did you get that? Yeah, the “bipartisan accord” thing. For those who haven’t had enough coffee yet today, that means that – once again – BOTH the Dems and the Republicans in Congress are agreeing to give the Bush-led military another $165 billion to continue to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq well into next year. Yes, next year, past the much-anticipated and hyped date of 1.20.09 when all the good Dems were “hoping” everything would be magically “Obamafied.” Good luck with that.
But there’s really nothing new here. The Dems have been going along with Bush and the Republicans on these wars from the beginning. They overwhelmingly voted to authorize the original force and they’ve fully funded them every single time the big, bad Bush has asked them to. Oh sure, they’ve whined, and squirmed, and begged, and stomped their feet from time to time but, in the end, they’ve always blinked in this little game of funding chicken with Bush.
What’s truly amazing is that even though the Dems keep funding these wars, they keep spewing the anti-war rhetoric. Worse, no matter how high these contradictions continue to pile up, the Dem cheerleaders keep drinking the almighty Kool-Aid and dreamily shaking their “change” and “hope” signs. Go team, go! Right. Over. The. Cliff. Well, when you act like fools, you’ll often be taken as one.
This new war funding bill will keep both wars financially greased until at least May of next year, thus handing Bush one hell of a stick to turn around and poke the Dems, the nation and the world right square in the eye. Impeach him? No, say the Dems, let’s just keeping feeding the beast and his beastly ideas even while he’ll be lounging in Crawford planning his silly little library (sorry, Mr. President, but My Pet Goat is already checked-out).
The Obama campaign was clearly a major player in ironing out this compromise, knowing that it would certainly be a campaign issue. Thus, it should give the antiwar/Obama crowd a reason to stop and reflect what they’re cheering for. Why, for example, would Obama and the Dems punt on the war issue? Worse, why would they agree to fund these wars through what they hope to be the first four months of an Obama administration? Looks like that “change” will be coming later than we thought – if at all.
But I’ll answer my own questions. There shouldn’t be any surprise about the Dems punting on the war issue (again) because that’s all they’ve been doing from the beginning. It’s apparently all they know how to do: huff and puff and then roll over for a belly scratch.
As for agreeing to fund the wars well into what they hope will be an Obama administration, it’s just the first of what will be many, many cave-ins and cop-outs. Wait, it’s not even the first, because this morning Obama announced that he was opting out of public financing for his presidential campaign. But, he noted, he really likes the idea of public financing. Hmm, I’m beginning to see a pattern: Hate the war but fund it, like public financing but reject its funding. And yes means no, right? Got it. Go team, go.
By agreeing to fund the wars for another year, the Obama camp will be able to continue to dodge any specifics on the war issue throughout the campaign. And even if he wins, he’ll have four months to claim that his hands are tied by the yearlong war-funding bill that this Dem-led Congress is about to pass. What a shame, because it also effectively kills any real grassroots potential that could have been harnessed by the stadiums full of screaming Obamacons that will certainly surface in the fall. But they can’t let the issues get in the way of the campaign. It might interrupt the cheering, the check signing and the hope. Oh, the hope!
Vermonters will be interested to know that Welch, Sanders and Leahy will most likely be voting against the war-funding compromise. They’ve clearly got visions of the riff-raff dancing in their offices again if they do anything but vote against it. Yes, indeed, direct action has an impact from time to time. But, before too many Vermonters pat themselves on the back for being oh-so-different, consider that none of the three will take any political risks to kill the bill. You know, things like filibusters, lobbying the leadership to stop the games, and/or the introduction of an alternative bill that would stop the funding now. It’s their party – and they’re staying for the dance.
Make no mistake, the Dems own the war. And forget 1.20.09. The best we can hope for now is 5.20.09.
Comments
One Response to “The Dems Own the Wars (again)”
Got something to say?
Posts
Yes Virginia, There’s Still A War On
and nobody wants it anymore
you can tell cause nobody even
wants to talk about it anymore
but hey, Virginia–here’s a news flash:
once upon a time
we used a big big bomb
equal to 20,000 tons of TNT
that killed over 100,000 people!
and the adults screamed:
“hip hip hooray! thank God at last!
the war will soon be over
our boys and girls are coming home!
no more bloody battles no more
war-weary tears for peace
we just dropped the big one!”
what do you think of that, Virginia?
no? well then, what then?
what will make us treat this war
like we treat, say, Christmas?
like we own Christmas?
take Christmas away, Virginia? jeez
boy, then you’d see some action, kiddo
we’d drop the big one!
no?
well then there’d still be a war on
but if you’re really good, Virginia
if you’re nice and quiet
and just don’t talk about it, maybe
just maybe, it will go away
no? jeez Virginia, it’s not nice
for little girls to say no all the time!
but that’s for another story
so go to sleep now, Virginia
the adults have to get stoned
we’re all running for office
no?
good night!