Monday, April 02, 2007

if you tell anybody i said this, i'll deny it...

A Democrat with testicles is a beautiful thing.
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), long one of the gutsy leaders on the Democratic side of the Senate aisle, has announced that he will propose legislation immediately on return from this week's break that will cut off all funding for the Iraq war in less than a year.

Upping the ante on another major showdown immediately following the expected Bush veto of the war-funding (and withdrawal) bill, is the fact that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) supports the Feingold measure and has signed on as the bill's first cosponsor.

4 comments:

chaatoes said...

PATS BLOW!!!!!
PATS BLOW!!!!!
PATS BLOW!!!!!
PATS BLOW!!!!!

Incidently, you went quite a long while between posts - I was startin' ta git worried...

Naahm Deplume said...

Skins Suck!

Re: Feingold. Now that is what I am talking about. I agree with you G, a dem with balls. I RESPECT the fact that he is putting his conviction out there, even if I disagree. I wish more of the Dems would vote rather than carp.

Barking Up Trees said...

goddamn, naahm, yer startin' to sound, uhm, *progressive*...

kinda weirdin' me out...

Naahm Deplume said...

I said I didn't agree; I just respect the fact that he has the courage of his convictions.

Besides, if you recall from the card game at your apt. years ago, I was not in favor of the war (albeit for different reasons than the Dems were sounding at the time). It is unwinnable in a traditional sense.

That said, I would rather we got out now, for I see that it is a winning scenario in one of two ways: First, to the extent that there is ill will and/or repurcussions from "losing" the war, let the Dems take the blame for it. Oh, the Dems will try to pawn blame off on the GOP for not "finishing" the war, but that has no traction. A better argument for them (and look for them to make it immediately) is that the GOP mucked things up so badly that all the bad stuff (from loss of prestige, to international impotence, to future terrorism) was inevitable. That still may not get them much traction, however, as the Dems will have effectively handcuffed themselves should they get to 1600.

Conversely, if there are no repurcussions, and the "loss" is accepted willingly, then the GOP loses (but doesn't lose much since the dems pulled out) and the country wins.

Either way, the goal has always been to have the Dems pull out, not the GOP. If the Dems do it in 2009 (coinciding with the recession they will cause after revoking Bush tax cuts), that would be better for the GOP, but I think it is just as good overall if they do it now.

Further, understand that this is not going to happen. The process however forces the dems out of the closet and hangs on them one of two labels: Decisive, cut and run types, or equivocal, political types. This is why sr. dems did not want this raised, BTW.