OK, so for six years now the president has had to work with Congress, and things have gone along fine as long as no one got in the way of his bipartisanship. Yeah. Like that would happen. What are you, one of those three branches of government weirdos? That's so pre-9/11. Congress was all like, ooh, Mr. president you are just the coolest. Invade a country because you don't like the color of their flag? Weeee! Spend billions of dollars we don't have? Where do we sign? Ignore the the third-strongest hurricane on record? Ah, never liked Cajun food that much anyway. Oh, Mr. president, Mr. president, say y'all for us please, oh please, just one more time. And can you look all steely eyed? We love that.
Things were going along in both a hunky and a dory way. Then along comes one of those, erm whatdyacallit, election thingys and it turns out the only people in the country who think Bush wouldn't lose a debate to Forest Gump are those already in Congress.
Oh, and Condoleeza Rice.
So a bunch of new people come in who apparently didn't see enough cowboy movies when they were kids because they certainly don't have this whole bipartisan thing down. They're all like, OK Mr. president, we're not going to give you everything you want until you say pretty, pretty please.
Well, you can imagine the consternation this causes Bush, who isn't used to even one pretty before a please. Come to think of it, he's not even used to a please. So is it any wonder the president thinks this whole checks and balances thing is a big waste of time?
President Bush lashed out at Congress, the third time he has done so in two weeks, this time saying the House had wasted time on “a constant string of investigations” and the Senate had similarly wasted its efforts by trying to rein in the Iraq war.
"Look," the president told reporters, "I don't know why the Congress is so het up over these investigations. As soon as they convict someone I'm going to pardon them. Maybe before. And as for the war, you see how well that's going."
“Congress is not caving in fast enough so work isn't getting done,” the president said in brief remarks from the North Portico of the White House where he had been found wandering. "And if anybody knows about not getting work done, it's me."
As he spoke, Mr. Bush was flanked by two senior Republicans, Representative John Boehner of Ohio, the minority leader, and Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the minority whip. Reporters were treated to a show of the president's abilities as he drank water while Boehner spoke.
Representative Nancy Pelosi responded sharply to the president’s criticisms. “The president calls Congressional oversight that has uncovered tens of billions of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq a ‘waste of time.’ We call billions spent in no-bid contracts to Halliburton a waste of money,” she said. "No offense Mr. Cheney sir."
The president again criticized Democrats over the S-CHIP bill, saying the Senate had taken up a second version of the legislation passed by the House “despite knowing it does not have a chance of becoming law. "You have to be at least eighteen to join the army and go to Iraq. Why should I spend good money on kids younger than that? We start coddling kids and the terrorists win,” Bush said.
Mr. Bush was also sharply critical of a reported plan by congressional leaders to combine the Defense Department appropriations bill with bills for domestic departments.“It’s hard to imagine a more cynical political strategy than trying to hold hostage funding for our troops in combat and our wounded warriors in order to extract $11 billion for people who probably wouldn't vote for me anyway,” he said. "And believe me, I know a lot about cynical political strategies."
The president continued his denunciations of Congress, saying its leaders had also failed to cave on Michael Mukasey as attorney general. “This is not what congressional leaders promised when they took control of Congress earlier this year,” he said then. "Well, actually it is because Mukasey cares even less about torture than Gonzales did, but when are the democrats going to realize that just because most people voted for them is no reason not to give me what I want?"
Later the president was overheard telling Representative Roy Blunt that if by some chance the Congress did override his veto of SCHIP he would lock himself in the bathroom and "hold my breath until I pass out."
Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Democrats In Da House Baby! We're Sorry, Was That Too Loud? Maybe We'll Just Sit Over Here And Be Quiet
Oh ye of little faith. We told you a new day was dawning when the democrats took over Congress. OK we didn't, but you don't read past entries anyway, so that's the story we're going with. Anyway you've made fun of the democrats ever since they took over, laughing at them for continually caving to the president, caving to all the feigned outrage at Moveon.org and ignoring the fact that they managed to...uh...they managed to...OK, never mind that, what we're talking about is the democrats have ended the war! Yay!
The House, with overwhelming, bipartisan support, voted yesterday to give the Bush administration two months to present to Congress its planning for the withdrawal of combat forces in Iraq.
Yeah. Hey Cheney. How you like us now, Biotch?
Under bill, the defense secretary would have 60 days to present to Congress plans for withdrawing combat forces and making a transition from a military mission to one of counterterrorism and the training of Iraqi security forces. But the measure would not specify a withdrawal timeline or require the administration to implement the plan.
Sixty days. You hear that. There's a new sheriff in town and he's given you 60 days to come up with a plan you don't have to implement.
Wait. Say that again.
But the measure would not specify a withdrawal timeline or require the administration to implement the plan.
Riiiight. Listen, thanks for coming by. It looks like you put a lot of work into this and we're going to look it over carefully. We really should have lunch sometime. Why don't you have your people call our people and we'll set something up.
Republican leaders dismissed the bill's significance. The staff of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner released a fact sheet emphasizing that the bill would not require a withdrawal of forces. "We thought the democrats were wusses when we were in charge," he said. "Now they're in charge and they're even bigger wusses. Hey, republicans might be crooks and perverts, but at least we're good at something.""
If anything, the bill is simply "a slap in the face to the Left," Boehner's fact sheet said. "If by 'left' you mean the 66% of Americans who want something done about this fiasco Bush has gotten us into."
Many Democrats were not particularly impressed either. "I don't think anybody likes it, but it does paint an important picture: Can we at least get a plan on the table?" said Representative Tim Ryan. "That is, if it's all right with you Mr. Cheney, sir."
Even as House leaders were pursuing a compromise on the non-plan plan, three leading House Democrats vowed yesterday that they will not entertain Bush's war funding request until he dramatically changes his Iraq war policy. "And by 'vow' we mean until the president comes out of the White House and gives us one of those looks again," said Senate majority leader Harry Reid. "He's a scary scary man."
The House, with overwhelming, bipartisan support, voted yesterday to give the Bush administration two months to present to Congress its planning for the withdrawal of combat forces in Iraq.
Yeah. Hey Cheney. How you like us now, Biotch?
Under bill, the defense secretary would have 60 days to present to Congress plans for withdrawing combat forces and making a transition from a military mission to one of counterterrorism and the training of Iraqi security forces. But the measure would not specify a withdrawal timeline or require the administration to implement the plan.
Sixty days. You hear that. There's a new sheriff in town and he's given you 60 days to come up with a plan you don't have to implement.
Wait. Say that again.
But the measure would not specify a withdrawal timeline or require the administration to implement the plan.
Riiiight. Listen, thanks for coming by. It looks like you put a lot of work into this and we're going to look it over carefully. We really should have lunch sometime. Why don't you have your people call our people and we'll set something up.
Republican leaders dismissed the bill's significance. The staff of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner released a fact sheet emphasizing that the bill would not require a withdrawal of forces. "We thought the democrats were wusses when we were in charge," he said. "Now they're in charge and they're even bigger wusses. Hey, republicans might be crooks and perverts, but at least we're good at something.""
If anything, the bill is simply "a slap in the face to the Left," Boehner's fact sheet said. "If by 'left' you mean the 66% of Americans who want something done about this fiasco Bush has gotten us into."
Many Democrats were not particularly impressed either. "I don't think anybody likes it, but it does paint an important picture: Can we at least get a plan on the table?" said Representative Tim Ryan. "That is, if it's all right with you Mr. Cheney, sir."
Even as House leaders were pursuing a compromise on the non-plan plan, three leading House Democrats vowed yesterday that they will not entertain Bush's war funding request until he dramatically changes his Iraq war policy. "And by 'vow' we mean until the president comes out of the White House and gives us one of those looks again," said Senate majority leader Harry Reid. "He's a scary scary man."
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
See, The Problem With Decisions Is They're So...Decisive
OK, admittedly we did sort of sleepwalk through the last election, although in our defense we have to say that the choice between a raving maniac and Phineas F. Milquetoast III wasn't exactly the electrifying draw everyone expected it to be. Anyway, we do seem to remember something about stopping the Bush war wagon or some such equally testosterone fueled foot stomping, fist pounding chest puffery on the part of democrats. Now it seems people expect them to do what they said.
Silly people.
House Democrats are peeved by warnings that anti-war groups may back primary challengers against Democrats who hesitate to directly challenge President Bush’s Iraq policy. "Oh, yeah like we can do something about that," said one democratic congressional aide. "You need to pass laws and stuff for that."
The threat of primary fights next year reminds congressional Democrats that part of their party’s base demands nothing less than a full legislative effort to get U.S. forces out of Iraq. "Well, if by 'part of the base' you mean everybody with an IQ over that of water, said one democratic senator who asked not to be identified."
Republicans, eager for any positive development regarding the 2008 elections say they can hardly believe their good fortune. "There's no way on god's green earth anyone who can tie their own shoes would vote for a republican after we screwed up things this badly, so sissy democrats is about all we got going for us," said one highly placed republican official.
No primary challenges have yet been announced, but possible targets mentioned by anti-war organizers include five-termer Brian Baird of Washington. Baird, who returned from a visit to Iraq in August saying it is too early to determine whether Bush’s surge strategy will be a total disaster or just an unmitigated one, said he will fight any challenge. “If I adjust my position because reality interferes with the voices in my head, I shouldn’t be in office anyway,’’ he said.
“It’s perfectly legitimate for constituents to express disappointment. But strategically it’s a mistake to go after those Democrats,’’ said Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "I mean it's like people expect us to do stuff just because they elected us and if we don't they're all like 'we're voting for somebody else.' What's up with that?"
“I think everybody’s fire should be aimed at Republicans,’’ McGovern said. “What has screwed everything up is that Republicans, with near-total unison, have stayed with the president on the war. So what do you want from me?’’
Neil Abercrombie D-Hawaii, said the anti-war groups’ threat, coupled with pressure within the House Democratic Caucus to settle for nothing less than mandating a speedy withdrawal from Iraq, amounts to a “recapitulation of the Inquisition. And no, I don't have any idea what that means, I just felt like saying it.’’
Republican leaders are gleeful. “I just sit on the side and have a big grin on my face,’’ said Tom Cole, R-Okla., head of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "Republicans got screwing up covered, the democrats are stuck with being the party of getting something right."
Silly people.
House Democrats are peeved by warnings that anti-war groups may back primary challengers against Democrats who hesitate to directly challenge President Bush’s Iraq policy. "Oh, yeah like we can do something about that," said one democratic congressional aide. "You need to pass laws and stuff for that."
The threat of primary fights next year reminds congressional Democrats that part of their party’s base demands nothing less than a full legislative effort to get U.S. forces out of Iraq. "Well, if by 'part of the base' you mean everybody with an IQ over that of water, said one democratic senator who asked not to be identified."
Republicans, eager for any positive development regarding the 2008 elections say they can hardly believe their good fortune. "There's no way on god's green earth anyone who can tie their own shoes would vote for a republican after we screwed up things this badly, so sissy democrats is about all we got going for us," said one highly placed republican official.
No primary challenges have yet been announced, but possible targets mentioned by anti-war organizers include five-termer Brian Baird of Washington. Baird, who returned from a visit to Iraq in August saying it is too early to determine whether Bush’s surge strategy will be a total disaster or just an unmitigated one, said he will fight any challenge. “If I adjust my position because reality interferes with the voices in my head, I shouldn’t be in office anyway,’’ he said.
“It’s perfectly legitimate for constituents to express disappointment. But strategically it’s a mistake to go after those Democrats,’’ said Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "I mean it's like people expect us to do stuff just because they elected us and if we don't they're all like 'we're voting for somebody else.' What's up with that?"
“I think everybody’s fire should be aimed at Republicans,’’ McGovern said. “What has screwed everything up is that Republicans, with near-total unison, have stayed with the president on the war. So what do you want from me?’’
Neil Abercrombie D-Hawaii, said the anti-war groups’ threat, coupled with pressure within the House Democratic Caucus to settle for nothing less than mandating a speedy withdrawal from Iraq, amounts to a “recapitulation of the Inquisition. And no, I don't have any idea what that means, I just felt like saying it.’’
Republican leaders are gleeful. “I just sit on the side and have a big grin on my face,’’ said Tom Cole, R-Okla., head of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "Republicans got screwing up covered, the democrats are stuck with being the party of getting something right."
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Senator Obama Announced Today That If A Majority Of People Vote For Him, He'll Win
Like most people with a life we haven't been paying much attention to the bus loads full of presidential wannabes careening about the country. We haven't seen any of the 14, 236 debates, Don't really care that Hillary and Osamabama don't get along and aren't surprised that Giuliani and the Mittster have drug addicts and perverts working for them. Hypocritical perverts at that.
That being said, when we read this from the Edwards campaign, it gave us pause. What drew us to this post was a small flickering of interest in what Edwards had to say about New Orleans, having spent many evenings in the company of good friends, fine food and excellent music in that particular region of the country. Some good, if fairly typical ideas were broached, but what gave us pause was this:
Edwards will enact a new requirement - "Brownie's Law" - ensuring that senior political appointees actually are qualified to perform the job to which they are appointed.
OK, present administration excepted, do we really need a law that says people should be able to do their jobs? We mean, isn't that like a given or something? Do we have mechanical engineers doing brain surgery? Are accountants flying the space shuttle? Are sanitation workers programming computers? Are idiots and bigots running for elective office? OK scratch that last one. Now, we understand that there are certain people currently...erm...serving in government for whom this might be a revelation, but has the rest of the country suddenly come down with a terminal case of the flaming stupids?
When did it become a mark of intellectual acumen to state the blindingly obvious as if it were the grand unifying theory of everything? Is this what we have to look forward to in the campaign:
BREAKING: Senator Hillary Clinton announced today that, if elected she would become the first woman president in the history of this nation. In other news, up is still above you and down still below.
OK, if that's the way they want to play it, we plan to give as good as we get. We are hereby announcing a condition to be known as "Bush Syndrome." Sufferers of "BS" are incapable of explaining sophisticated concepts, cannot grasp any kind of complexity, and often resort to stating common truths with the wide eyed innocence and wonder of three year olds. As a public service of this blog and when we feel like it, we will bring to your attention outbreaks of BS along the campaign trail.
Umm...when we start paying attention that is. Hey, you aren't the boss of us.
Oh, and apparently one of the side effects of BS is that the infected like to run for public office, but the really scary part is we elect these people, making us sufferers of Bush Syndrome by Proxy. Hooray for America!
That being said, when we read this from the Edwards campaign, it gave us pause. What drew us to this post was a small flickering of interest in what Edwards had to say about New Orleans, having spent many evenings in the company of good friends, fine food and excellent music in that particular region of the country. Some good, if fairly typical ideas were broached, but what gave us pause was this:
Edwards will enact a new requirement - "Brownie's Law" - ensuring that senior political appointees actually are qualified to perform the job to which they are appointed.
OK, present administration excepted, do we really need a law that says people should be able to do their jobs? We mean, isn't that like a given or something? Do we have mechanical engineers doing brain surgery? Are accountants flying the space shuttle? Are sanitation workers programming computers? Are idiots and bigots running for elective office? OK scratch that last one. Now, we understand that there are certain people currently...erm...serving in government for whom this might be a revelation, but has the rest of the country suddenly come down with a terminal case of the flaming stupids?
When did it become a mark of intellectual acumen to state the blindingly obvious as if it were the grand unifying theory of everything? Is this what we have to look forward to in the campaign:
BREAKING: Senator Hillary Clinton announced today that, if elected she would become the first woman president in the history of this nation. In other news, up is still above you and down still below.
OK, if that's the way they want to play it, we plan to give as good as we get. We are hereby announcing a condition to be known as "Bush Syndrome." Sufferers of "BS" are incapable of explaining sophisticated concepts, cannot grasp any kind of complexity, and often resort to stating common truths with the wide eyed innocence and wonder of three year olds. As a public service of this blog and when we feel like it, we will bring to your attention outbreaks of BS along the campaign trail.
Umm...when we start paying attention that is. Hey, you aren't the boss of us.
Oh, and apparently one of the side effects of BS is that the infected like to run for public office, but the really scary part is we elect these people, making us sufferers of Bush Syndrome by Proxy. Hooray for America!
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Let's Agree To Discuss The Dicussion Of What Discussion We Might Discuss
We're coming to you from the Department of Magnanimity today, here in the marbled halls of IM Central. Yesterday we cast aspersions upon the members of the current House of Representatives. Well, the democratic members actually. The republicans got aspersions up the wazoo and we're not going there. Anyway, we implied that the duly elected majority of the House was somewhat less that steely eyed in their resolve to carry out the people's will and get busy ending the war.
If by implied you mean we called them a bunch of wusses. So, having said that we must offer kudos to those members of the senate, who, grasping the colors from their fallen brethren, have charged forward and opened their own front in the war to end the war.
The U.S. Senate voted on Wednesday to consider a Democratic plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.
Yay! We're going to talk about what we should talk about.
Excuse us, we just have to know, is the president shaking in his boots yet? Does he sense the righteous wrath he has called down on himself? We're just asking because once this debate gets started someone is sure to point out that his administration has been what you might call...uh...a debacle.
See, since the president is so closely connected to the people, we know how sensitive he is about his public image and we're just afraid that when the senate starts talking about the war it's liable to get out that he hasn't been an unqualified success as a chief executive.
"It's about time we had courage to stand up and say to the president, Mr. President, we're going to start talking about all the bad, bad things you did, and may even call you a poopy head," Delaware Democrat Senator Joseph Biden said.
"I'm really encouraged that the senate is has decided to begin talking about the war," said Marine Sgt. Ty Ziegel, "I'm sure all my fellow Marines feel much safer now, knowing that senators will no longer let their sacrifice go undiscussed."
If by implied you mean we called them a bunch of wusses. So, having said that we must offer kudos to those members of the senate, who, grasping the colors from their fallen brethren, have charged forward and opened their own front in the war to end the war.
The U.S. Senate voted on Wednesday to consider a Democratic plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.
Yay! We're going to talk about what we should talk about.
Excuse us, we just have to know, is the president shaking in his boots yet? Does he sense the righteous wrath he has called down on himself? We're just asking because once this debate gets started someone is sure to point out that his administration has been what you might call...uh...a debacle.
See, since the president is so closely connected to the people, we know how sensitive he is about his public image and we're just afraid that when the senate starts talking about the war it's liable to get out that he hasn't been an unqualified success as a chief executive.
"It's about time we had courage to stand up and say to the president, Mr. President, we're going to start talking about all the bad, bad things you did, and may even call you a poopy head," Delaware Democrat Senator Joseph Biden said.
"I'm really encouraged that the senate is has decided to begin talking about the war," said Marine Sgt. Ty Ziegel, "I'm sure all my fellow Marines feel much safer now, knowing that senators will no longer let their sacrifice go undiscussed."
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
It's Hard To Vote When You're Hiding Under Your Desk
OK, here's the deal: The Republican symbol is an elephant because, even though it's slow, once it gets going in a particular direction it's pretty hard to stop, and if you get in the way...well just ask Gore and Kerry. Now, the democrat(ic) symbol is a donkey because now the the election is over WE'RE GETTING READY TO KICK SOME BUSH BUTT!!!11!
Oh, Congress is back baby, and it's on now. Hey "King" George. Better check that tea 'cause it's about to be in the harbor. Go get 'em boys:
Democratic leaders are stripping from a military spending bill for the war in Iran a requirement that president Bush gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.
Oh Yeah! How you like us now Georgie? How 'bout some of this don't need to ask Congress to start another war all up in your grill? That's...That's...wait a minute...your saying he doesn't have to get approval to start another war?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other leaders agreed to remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as well as other lawmakers worried it might displease the president. "Look, his domestic policies are DOA, his administration is a shambles. Starting wars is about all the poor fellow has left," an aide to representative Pelosi told reporters.
The overall bill — which requires that the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008, unless the president uses the magic word remained on schedule for an initial test vote Thursday by the vice president's congressional oversight and intimidation committee.
The measure provides nearly $100 billion to pay for two wars and includes more money than Bush had requested for operations in Afghanistan. Still, House Republicans said they wouldn't support it and the White House threatened a veto. "We don't feel it's in the country's best interest to limit the president to two wars," said Minority Leader John Boehner.
"Republicans will continue to stand united in this debate, and will oppose efforts by Democrats to undermine the ability of General (David) Petraeus and our troops to achieve victory in the Global War on Terror," he added. "That is what we want isn't? I didn't see today's talking points" Later the Senator's office issued a clarification apologizing for not using the term "cut and run" when describing democrats.
The vice president criticized supporters of the bill's withdrawal provisions, declaring in a speech Monday that they were "interfering with Hallibuton's quarterly profit margins."
Pelosi issued a written statement that said the vice president's remarks prove that "the administration's answer to continuing violence in Iraq is more troops and more treasure from the American people."
"So what?" the vice president responded. "What are you going to do about it, Nancy girl? I bet you never even shot a gun, let alone killed a pen raised bird with clipped wings." Pelosi's office later withdrew her comments and issued a statement saying she hoped to "work together with the administration to find a solution acceptable both sides."
"Being in Tehran for Christmas, that's my solution," Cheney told reporters.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a statement that America was less safe today because of the war. The president "must change course, and it's time for the Senate to demand he do it," he added. "And tomorrow I"m going right up to the White House and ask the president for permission to make that demand. By the way, Cheney's out of town tomorrow, right?"
Several officials said there was widespread opposition to the proposal at a closed-door meeting last week of conservative and moderate Democrats, who said they feared tying the hands of the administration when dealing with an unpredictable and potentially hostile regime in Tehran. "Look, these guys screw up when all the options are there," said one unnamed source close to the negotiations. "We were just too afraid of what they might do with some restrictions."
Oh, Congress is back baby, and it's on now. Hey "King" George. Better check that tea 'cause it's about to be in the harbor. Go get 'em boys:
Democratic leaders are stripping from a military spending bill for the war in Iran a requirement that president Bush gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.
Oh Yeah! How you like us now Georgie? How 'bout some of this don't need to ask Congress to start another war all up in your grill? That's...That's...wait a minute...your saying he doesn't have to get approval to start another war?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other leaders agreed to remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as well as other lawmakers worried it might displease the president. "Look, his domestic policies are DOA, his administration is a shambles. Starting wars is about all the poor fellow has left," an aide to representative Pelosi told reporters.
The overall bill — which requires that the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008, unless the president uses the magic word remained on schedule for an initial test vote Thursday by the vice president's congressional oversight and intimidation committee.
The measure provides nearly $100 billion to pay for two wars and includes more money than Bush had requested for operations in Afghanistan. Still, House Republicans said they wouldn't support it and the White House threatened a veto. "We don't feel it's in the country's best interest to limit the president to two wars," said Minority Leader John Boehner.
"Republicans will continue to stand united in this debate, and will oppose efforts by Democrats to undermine the ability of General (David) Petraeus and our troops to achieve victory in the Global War on Terror," he added. "That is what we want isn't? I didn't see today's talking points" Later the Senator's office issued a clarification apologizing for not using the term "cut and run" when describing democrats.
The vice president criticized supporters of the bill's withdrawal provisions, declaring in a speech Monday that they were "interfering with Hallibuton's quarterly profit margins."
Pelosi issued a written statement that said the vice president's remarks prove that "the administration's answer to continuing violence in Iraq is more troops and more treasure from the American people."
"So what?" the vice president responded. "What are you going to do about it, Nancy girl? I bet you never even shot a gun, let alone killed a pen raised bird with clipped wings." Pelosi's office later withdrew her comments and issued a statement saying she hoped to "work together with the administration to find a solution acceptable both sides."
"Being in Tehran for Christmas, that's my solution," Cheney told reporters.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a statement that America was less safe today because of the war. The president "must change course, and it's time for the Senate to demand he do it," he added. "And tomorrow I"m going right up to the White House and ask the president for permission to make that demand. By the way, Cheney's out of town tomorrow, right?"
Representative Shelley Berkley (D - Bruises Easily) said, "It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," she said of the now-abandoned provision.
"I didn't think it was a very wise idea to take something as uncivilized, brutal and wasteful as war off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way," said Representative Gary Ackerman (D - Heavily Medicated). "Particularly since the two wars we're fighting now are going so well."Several officials said there was widespread opposition to the proposal at a closed-door meeting last week of conservative and moderate Democrats, who said they feared tying the hands of the administration when dealing with an unpredictable and potentially hostile regime in Tehran. "Look, these guys screw up when all the options are there," said one unnamed source close to the negotiations. "We were just too afraid of what they might do with some restrictions."
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
The People Elected Democrats Because They Want Change. Is That OK With You Mr. President Sir?
Yes, you may have already had your day brightened by our whimsical portrayal of our hapless president, lost once again in a mess of his own making, posted below, but ever eager to please our reader (Hi Mom!) we come to you today from the Twofer Department here at IM Central, a wholly owned subsidy of the Boss Is Taking A Vacation Day Corporation.
Besides, the party that campaigned on saving America from the Bush administration has been put into power. You didn't think we could pass this up, did you?
Senior House Democrats, seeking to stick their noses further up the butts of members of their party from Republican-leaning districts, are pushing a plan that would place "restrictions" on president Bush's ability to wage the war in Iraq but would allow him to waive them if he says pretty please with sugar on top. "Look, we just got back into the big offices, you think we want to screw that up by actually doing something," asked one democratic senator who requested anonymity.
Under the proposal, Bush would be asked politely, and with all due respect to set a date to begin to talk about the date that troop withdrawals could be discussed in Congress if the Iraqi government fails to continually redefine benchmarks aimed at keeping American troops in Iraq until the second coming. "We can't get too aggressive about this," said one democratic congressional aide. "You don't know what it's like when the president sends Cheney over here."
The plan is an attempt to bridge the differences between Democrats who actually give a rip, led by John Murtha (D - Gonads) and Democrats wary of doing something that might be construed as actually corresponding to the major reason they were elected in the first place. "I signed a lease," said one newly elected democratic representative. "Plus, I don't want to screw up in my first term and not qualify for the pension."
The legislative hand wringing in the back rooms of Capitol Hill underscores the difficulties the Democrats face in confronting the issue that helped them regain control of Congress -- Iraq. "Come on, when we were all like 'end the war' before the election, we didn't mean you should take us seriously," said one aide to a democratic senator. "You say what you think will get you elected. That's how it works, right?"
Democrats hope the pretty please and "adjustable" benchmark proposals will keep the policymaking responsibilities on Bush. "Look, the guy's doing the best he can," said one democratic congressman from a republican district. "Give his surge a few years to work, that's what I say."
Anti war groups, such as the Service Employees International Union, MoveOn.org, Win Without War and the Iraq veterans group VoteVets -- insisted there would be more support for a straightforward approach to ending the war. "What do they know?" said a democratic senator who asked not to be named because "Cheney might read this. Those anti war people, they never had to run for election."
Democratic leaders are not likely to embrace a straightforward legislative timetable. But they hope the adoption of the "adjustable" benchmarks will win over antiwar groups. "Just give us five more years," said one democratic leader, "And then if it isn't working, we're out." When asked if he was proposing a withdrawal of troops in five years, he responded, "No. I mean I'll be vested in the health and pension plan by then, and then I'm out."
In the Senate, Democratic leaders are drafting a resolution that would drastically narrow the scope of the military mission in Iraq to that of a support role, with the emphasis on counterterrorism activities. "We'll be ready to go as soon as Cheney signs off on it," said one democratic senator on the committee.
Democrats intend to give Republicans broad latitude to offer their own Iraq-related measures. If Republicans go along, the result could be a remarkably meaningless and completely scripted "debate" -- but nothing of consequence is likely to pass. "What's your point?" asked one democratic representative.
Besides, the party that campaigned on saving America from the Bush administration has been put into power. You didn't think we could pass this up, did you?
Senior House Democrats, seeking to stick their noses further up the butts of members of their party from Republican-leaning districts, are pushing a plan that would place "restrictions" on president Bush's ability to wage the war in Iraq but would allow him to waive them if he says pretty please with sugar on top. "Look, we just got back into the big offices, you think we want to screw that up by actually doing something," asked one democratic senator who requested anonymity.
Under the proposal, Bush would be asked politely, and with all due respect to set a date to begin to talk about the date that troop withdrawals could be discussed in Congress if the Iraqi government fails to continually redefine benchmarks aimed at keeping American troops in Iraq until the second coming. "We can't get too aggressive about this," said one democratic congressional aide. "You don't know what it's like when the president sends Cheney over here."
The plan is an attempt to bridge the differences between Democrats who actually give a rip, led by John Murtha (D - Gonads) and Democrats wary of doing something that might be construed as actually corresponding to the major reason they were elected in the first place. "I signed a lease," said one newly elected democratic representative. "Plus, I don't want to screw up in my first term and not qualify for the pension."
The legislative hand wringing in the back rooms of Capitol Hill underscores the difficulties the Democrats face in confronting the issue that helped them regain control of Congress -- Iraq. "Come on, when we were all like 'end the war' before the election, we didn't mean you should take us seriously," said one aide to a democratic senator. "You say what you think will get you elected. That's how it works, right?"
Democrats hope the pretty please and "adjustable" benchmark proposals will keep the policymaking responsibilities on Bush. "Look, the guy's doing the best he can," said one democratic congressman from a republican district. "Give his surge a few years to work, that's what I say."
Anti war groups, such as the Service Employees International Union, MoveOn.org, Win Without War and the Iraq veterans group VoteVets -- insisted there would be more support for a straightforward approach to ending the war. "What do they know?" said a democratic senator who asked not to be named because "Cheney might read this. Those anti war people, they never had to run for election."
Democratic leaders are not likely to embrace a straightforward legislative timetable. But they hope the adoption of the "adjustable" benchmarks will win over antiwar groups. "Just give us five more years," said one democratic leader, "And then if it isn't working, we're out." When asked if he was proposing a withdrawal of troops in five years, he responded, "No. I mean I'll be vested in the health and pension plan by then, and then I'm out."
In the Senate, Democratic leaders are drafting a resolution that would drastically narrow the scope of the military mission in Iraq to that of a support role, with the emphasis on counterterrorism activities. "We'll be ready to go as soon as Cheney signs off on it," said one democratic senator on the committee.
Democrats intend to give Republicans broad latitude to offer their own Iraq-related measures. If Republicans go along, the result could be a remarkably meaningless and completely scripted "debate" -- but nothing of consequence is likely to pass. "What's your point?" asked one democratic representative.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Don't Make Us Hold Our Breath Until We Pass Out
Ah, elections, those regularly scheduled bloodless revolutions every democratic society engages in, where the voice of the people replaces bombs and bullets, and the direction of a country is changed by the flick of a lever rather than the clash of armies. And who emerges from this semi-yearly exercise in mob rule? Leaders that's who. Leaders who the people call out to for strength, wisdom and the courage to bring this country out of the darkness.
Unfortunately, this time we got democrats. Hey, nobody said the system was perfect.
Two leading Senate Democrats are seeking to dispel concerns that a nonbinding resolution on Iraq doesn't go far enough, saying it would make a strong statement to president Bush that a troop increase is wrong. "He didn't listen to the Intelligence Services; he didn't listen to his generals; he didn't listen to just about everyone his father could get to figure a way for him to get out of this mess; and he didn't listen to the voters. But he'll listen now because we wrote the resolution in all caps," said Michigan Senator Carl Levin.
The proposal is completely toothless and would have no effect on money for troops. It states that "it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq, and if you go ahead with this you're a big poopy head and we won't sit with you at lunch."
"It will be a very powerful message if a bipartisan majority of the Congress say that they disagree with the increased military involvement in Iraq," said Levin.
"Ah, we stopped listening to the Congress three years ago," countered White House Press Secretary Tony Snowjob. "We just need them to sign the checks and they can get back to their golf games."
Division over whether Democrats should push a stronger measure could spell defeat for the resolution, Levin cautioned. "Lord knows we don't want to do anything that might actually affect the president's policies. He'll send Cheney back up here. That guy's whack."
Bush, meanwhile, says in a new interview that the best way to convince skeptics "that this makes sense is to ignore them and pretend that it works. That makes it consistent with my other policies."
Asked in an interview whether Iraq would be a problem after he leaves office in January 2009, (which is 710 days away, but who's counting?) Bush said: "My war on terror will be a problem for the world. Presidents after me will be confronting ... an enemy that would like to strike the United States again, especially after all I've done to tick them off these last few years."
Bush is expected to address the Iraq war in his State of the Union speech Tuesday and renew his calls to work together with Democrats on a bipartisan way to do what he wants. "Well, if by 'democrats' you mean Joe Lieberman," Snowjob said.
Biden said despite other proposals that might actually accomplish something, there was overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress to take the easy way out. "Congress has to do what it does best," Biden said.
Unfortunately, this time we got democrats. Hey, nobody said the system was perfect.
Two leading Senate Democrats are seeking to dispel concerns that a nonbinding resolution on Iraq doesn't go far enough, saying it would make a strong statement to president Bush that a troop increase is wrong. "He didn't listen to the Intelligence Services; he didn't listen to his generals; he didn't listen to just about everyone his father could get to figure a way for him to get out of this mess; and he didn't listen to the voters. But he'll listen now because we wrote the resolution in all caps," said Michigan Senator Carl Levin.
The proposal is completely toothless and would have no effect on money for troops. It states that "it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq, and if you go ahead with this you're a big poopy head and we won't sit with you at lunch."
"It will be a very powerful message if a bipartisan majority of the Congress say that they disagree with the increased military involvement in Iraq," said Levin.
"Ah, we stopped listening to the Congress three years ago," countered White House Press Secretary Tony Snowjob. "We just need them to sign the checks and they can get back to their golf games."
Division over whether Democrats should push a stronger measure could spell defeat for the resolution, Levin cautioned. "Lord knows we don't want to do anything that might actually affect the president's policies. He'll send Cheney back up here. That guy's whack."
Bush, meanwhile, says in a new interview that the best way to convince skeptics "that this makes sense is to ignore them and pretend that it works. That makes it consistent with my other policies."
Asked in an interview whether Iraq would be a problem after he leaves office in January 2009, (which is 710 days away, but who's counting?) Bush said: "My war on terror will be a problem for the world. Presidents after me will be confronting ... an enemy that would like to strike the United States again, especially after all I've done to tick them off these last few years."
Bush is expected to address the Iraq war in his State of the Union speech Tuesday and renew his calls to work together with Democrats on a bipartisan way to do what he wants. "Well, if by 'democrats' you mean Joe Lieberman," Snowjob said.
Biden said despite other proposals that might actually accomplish something, there was overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress to take the easy way out. "Congress has to do what it does best," Biden said.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
That Better Be A Dead Body In Your Freezer
See, here's the difference between democrats and republicans. When the republicans are crooked, they use the money to buy yachts, big houses, go on golf trips in Europe and buy expensive art. When the democrats are crooked, they stuff the money in their freezer. This is why the people in Jefferson's district re-elected him. "It's obvious he needs more time to get this graft thing down," said a Jefferson supporter who asked not to be identified because of outstanding warrants.
In a political comeback that's astounding even by republican standards, Representative William Jefferson (D- KoolKash) began his ninth term in office last week trying to mend fences with fellow Democrats intent on cleaning up Congress. "Anybody need a loan?" Jefferson asked at a meeting of democratic leaders. "I've got cash and good rates."
"It's great to have people trust you enough to send you back," Jefferson said. "It also helps that they're dumb as a box of rocks."
Jefferson's re-election has not been celebrated by many House Democratic leaders. New House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Ain't Yo Momma, stripped Jefferson of his Ways and Means Committee seat last year and instead offered him an olive branch in the form of a less prestigious seat on the Parking Assignments Committee. "That Committee doesn't meet very often," she said. "So he can probably continue to Chair it from his cell."
Pelosi promised that the Democratic Congress will usher in the "toughest congressional reform in history. To begin with, stand alone freezer size will be strictly limited."
Representative Gene Taylor, a conservative Democrat from Mississippi who once considered Pelosi too female for his support, now praises the Democratic leader for her very tough stance with regards to Bill Jefferson. "I heard she wanted to shoot the guy," he said. "But then she figured the Parking Committee would be worse."
Jefferson, however, is no political pariah among most members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who are still chafing over what they view as unfair treatment by Pelosi. "We're still down with the brotha," said one member who asked not to be named, but did request a shout out to "all my dawgs in the hood."
Jefferson said he was treated sympathetically by Representatives Charlie Melancon, D-KashOnly, and Jim McCrery, R-KashOut, after the bribery scandal which he refers to as "this little illegality" broke last year. "Both offered me space in their safe deposit boxes for anything the FBI didn't get," Jefferson said.
But there may be new tensions in the delegation, especially between Jefferson and Senator Mary Landrieu, a fellow New Orleans democrat who's expected to have a tough re-election race in 2008. Jefferson's press secretary, Melanie Roussell, hinted that Landrieu may have lost some of her support in New Orleans by failing to support Jefferson. "She certainly will have trouble holding on to the gangsta vote," Roussell said.
While democratic leaders in Washington and supporters in New Orleans await the outcome, Jefferson said he plans to make the best of his seat on the Parking Assignment Committee. "I'd just like to say to any of my constituents in New Orlean who still have cars, if you ever come to Washington, I'll see you get a place to park. If I"m not in jail by then that is."
In a political comeback that's astounding even by republican standards, Representative William Jefferson (D- KoolKash) began his ninth term in office last week trying to mend fences with fellow Democrats intent on cleaning up Congress. "Anybody need a loan?" Jefferson asked at a meeting of democratic leaders. "I've got cash and good rates."
"It's great to have people trust you enough to send you back," Jefferson said. "It also helps that they're dumb as a box of rocks."
Jefferson's re-election has not been celebrated by many House Democratic leaders. New House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Ain't Yo Momma, stripped Jefferson of his Ways and Means Committee seat last year and instead offered him an olive branch in the form of a less prestigious seat on the Parking Assignments Committee. "That Committee doesn't meet very often," she said. "So he can probably continue to Chair it from his cell."
Pelosi promised that the Democratic Congress will usher in the "toughest congressional reform in history. To begin with, stand alone freezer size will be strictly limited."
Representative Gene Taylor, a conservative Democrat from Mississippi who once considered Pelosi too female for his support, now praises the Democratic leader for her very tough stance with regards to Bill Jefferson. "I heard she wanted to shoot the guy," he said. "But then she figured the Parking Committee would be worse."
Jefferson, however, is no political pariah among most members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who are still chafing over what they view as unfair treatment by Pelosi. "We're still down with the brotha," said one member who asked not to be named, but did request a shout out to "all my dawgs in the hood."
Jefferson said he was treated sympathetically by Representatives Charlie Melancon, D-KashOnly, and Jim McCrery, R-KashOut, after the bribery scandal which he refers to as "this little illegality" broke last year. "Both offered me space in their safe deposit boxes for anything the FBI didn't get," Jefferson said.
But there may be new tensions in the delegation, especially between Jefferson and Senator Mary Landrieu, a fellow New Orleans democrat who's expected to have a tough re-election race in 2008. Jefferson's press secretary, Melanie Roussell, hinted that Landrieu may have lost some of her support in New Orleans by failing to support Jefferson. "She certainly will have trouble holding on to the gangsta vote," Roussell said.
While democratic leaders in Washington and supporters in New Orleans await the outcome, Jefferson said he plans to make the best of his seat on the Parking Assignment Committee. "I'd just like to say to any of my constituents in New Orlean who still have cars, if you ever come to Washington, I'll see you get a place to park. If I"m not in jail by then that is."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
’)