Robert Parry: Sen. Levin's False History and Logic

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/8268

Sen. Levin's False History and Logic
by Robert Parry | Jun 23 2007

snip//

But Levin’s logic is wrong again. While his proposal – to impose a troop withdrawal deadline – would require 60 votes to stop a Republican filibuster and then would need 67 votes to overcome Bush’s certain veto, the same is not true for a war-funding cut-off.

To secure the money to continue fighting the war, Bush is the one who needs majorities in both the House and the Senate. Indeed, arguably, he would need 60 votes in the Senate to end a filibuster if anti-war senators mounted one.

More likely, however, if faced with a determined Democratic majority, Bush would have no choice but to seek a compromise in order to get at least some of what he wants.

In other words, if the Democrats were to hold firm against giving Bush another blank check – as their leaders vowed to do in early 2007 – Bush would have to decide between accepting some strings, such as a withdrawal timetable, or getting no money at all, thus forcing an end to the war.

By contrast, Levin’s “strategy” amounts to running up the white flag at the beginning of the battle, telling Bush that the Democrats will cave in if he sticks to his guns. That approach proved disastrous in May when Democrats retreated tails between their legs and Bush celebrated their humiliation.

After that debacle, not only was the Democratic “base” furious but public opinion polls showed a drastic drop-off in support of the Democratic-controlled Congress. A similar round of feckless posturing this fall will only harden the voters’ contempt, thus playing into Republican hands for Election 2008.

more...

<snip>

To secure the money to continue fighting the war, Bush is the one who needs majorities in both the House and the Senate. Indeed, arguably, he would need 60 votes in the Senate to end a filibuster if anti-war senators mounted one.

More likely, however, if faced with a determined Democratic majority, Bush would have no choice but to seek a compromise in order to get at least some of what he wants.

In other words, if the Democrats were to hold firm against giving Bush another blank check – as their leaders vowed to do in early 2007 – Bush would have to decide between accepting some strings, such as a withdrawal timetable, or getting no money at all, thus forcing an end to the war.

<snip>

The bottom line folks. The dems can do it. They can keep bush tied up in knots forever.

They just likes that corporate cash, that's all.

don't need to write a funding bill. I do believe that Boooshy is playing chicken with them - I believe that he has made back-room threats that if Dems don't fund X then he will do Y -- and Y will hurt the troops. The question for the Dems to answer is whether the Y that Boooshy is threatening is any worse than dragging this war crime out further and further into the future.

:kick:

and the TV will put Joe Lieberman on as the "Democratic Response".

No thank you. We have to quit acting like abused spouses. We are not responsible for the criminal illogical actions of "THEM". They are responsible for their illegal immoral criminal acts.

Like This:






But as you may have noticed, articles of impeachment are conspicuous by their absence on the House floor.
Instead of impeaching Bush** for starting an illegal war based on fraud and deceit, they have voted to continue it.

We are not getting what we want, and it is not as though we haven't been telling them. We have been ringing their phones off the hook.

Unless they are all just like Joe Lieberman underneath (a prospect too horrible to contemplate),
we must assume they are being intimidated by the Repiglicans' Mighty Slime Machine.

but the clueless, feckless fools couldn't accept Bush's veto.