A couple of nights ago, as I was quietly moving around the living room, I watched the President come on TV for his press conference in the Rose Garden. Thinking to myself, “this ought to be good”, I scampered hurriedly to the fridge for a beer and settled down to watch the fireworks.
George Bush looked about as happy as a man about to have a root canal. He never looks good at press conferences, I think he must have to be talked into giving them. After all, he is the “decider” is he not? Perhaps-but he is also a guy who has gotten way too used to being a boss and has forgotten how the other half lives. He’s not been a follower since the mid 80’s when Laura took him away from the only substance that might bring some levity to his existence.
And then he spoke:
“It has now been 57 days since I requested that Congress pass emergency funds for our troops. Instead of passing clean bills that fund our troops on the front lines, the House and Senate have spent this time debating bills that undercut the troops, by substituting the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground, setting an arbitrary deadline for withdrawal from Iraq, and spending billions of dollars on pork barrel projects completely unrelated to the war. (…)
Now there are two facts that President conveniently overlooked because it suited HIS political pandering. 1) Congress has never passed a supplemental quickly (his Republican lackeys averaged around 111 days to get on through the past two years) and b) if he was really honest about the cost of the war, much of the spending that was requested in this bill would have been included in the annual appropriations of the various departments last summer when the budget was passed. I’ve pointed this out before and I will continue to hammer the point. It is not exactly like it was a secret that the war would still be going on for all of this year when his budget was submitted in February of 2006. However painting it as an emergency, makes better theater for him.
Exactly who is using this bill for political purposes? Oh I forgot, both sides are guilty of the same infraction. I could go on except its already been written for me:
* Moreover, it’s worth asking why the Congress is considering a supplemental appropriations bill at all. Answer: because this President is in the habit of not asking for enough money in his budget requests, which his administration drafts, to get through the entire year. The Democrats have put him on notice that he will need to work through the regular budget process this year; had he done so last year, we wouldn’t be having this debate.* The President seems to think that because the Congress has passed supplemental appropriations bills that he doesn’t like and has threatened to veto, they don’t really count as having voted to appropriate funds for the troops at all. But that’s just wrong. The Congress has voted to do so, and they will probably agree on a conference version and vote it up in fairly short order. And guess what? That bill appropriates funds for the troops.
There were a lot of other inconsistencies in the Presidents remarks. What I found truly remarkable was that he had to read from a list of pre-selected reporters to call on. Guess they did not want to have Michael Ware ask a pertinent question that might have called into question the script. Of course had Mr Ware been there he would have been lambasted by the media for snickering when he did not snicker at all-even though the President probably would have deserved at least a couple of good guffaws.
Especially when he said this:
We have made it clear to high-ranking officials, whether they be Republicans
or Democrats, that going to Syria sends mixed signals — signals in the region
and, of course, mixed signals to President Assad.
That sentiment did not stop the administration from arranging a Republican delegation to exactly the same thing however.
Of course, Nancy Pelosi is one to talk. She has proven herself to be a really stupid bitch big hypocrite. Anybody watch her press conference in Syria? Trying to sound all statesfeminst like as she then went and undermined Israels position vis a vis Syria-putting words in Ohmert’s mouth? Yea that was rich.
I’ll be clear-I do not believe it is the job of Congress people to meet with foreign leaders. That’s an executive function. Don’t like what the Presidents ambassadors are doing? Impeach them. THAT is a Congressional prerogative-like that executive privilege thing.
Also, interesting while she talks about a bill that protects the troops she is curiously quiet on the loads of pork in the bill-placed to buy Democratic votes. A tactic that she decried just one year ago. When they are asked, for some reason the word “Katrina” keeps coming out of fellow Congressman’s mouths. Excuse me, WTF does that have to do with Iraq?
Pelosi and her Democratic horde are stupid. That’s right, stupid. They could have played this thing a whole lot smarter-if they really would think about it-by stripping every line item out of the bill that was not directly connected to DOD. Tell the President to get the State department to submit its own supplemental. Or get him to size his budget right in the first place. No pork-just money for OMN to keep the train running. They probably could have left the deadlines in-the President might have vetoed it anyway, but at least they would be on high ground. And I guarantee you had they removed all non DOD line items from the bill-and forgotten timetables-the President would have screamed just as loud.
Problem is that presumes that SF, rich liberals can think about the long game. It’s been proven that they can’t. So even though Baghdad has been proven “just as safe as Detroit”, they fritter away any chance to get that little bit of falsehood public and so give the President an advantage.
Which leads to the really scary conclusion. Both sides of government do not know what they are doing. Which leaves the Soldiers on the ground and the people back at home exactly what options?
None really, except to pray for November 2008 to hurry up and arrive.
