Andrew Warner

As is being widely reported everywhere, the Senate voted not to cut off funding to the Iraq War.

From the NY Times:

Democrats who are highly critical of President Bush’s Iraq war strategy suffered a stinging defeat today when the Senate overwhelmingly rejected a measure to cut off money for the military campaign by March 31, 2008.

The measure, in the form of an amendment to an unrelated water-projects bill, was effectively rejected, 67 to 29, with 19 Democrats voting against it in a procedural vote. Sixty “yes” votes were required for the measure to advance, so it fell short by 31 votes.

Only 28 Democrats and Bernie Sanders voted for the amendment. Votes like this make me wonder how people still support such an unpredictable and un-unified party. If cutting off funding to Bush and the Republicans isn't their plan, what is?

You don't know. Nobody does...

On a side note, presidential hopefuls Obama and Clinton both voted FOR the amendment. I guess they’re the only Democrats who have to pretend to have principles (people are watching).

Labels: Iraq, National Politics, war

Posted by Andrew Warner at 1:53 PM | Permalink | Comments

The New York Times is reporting that President Bush is rejecting Democratic efforts to create a timetable for withdrawal.

The provision passed the Senate by a narrow 50-48 margin and appeared to put President Bush in an unusual position – he looked as if he might actually have to compromise with the legislative branch.

Bush, sadly but expectedly, has dug his heels in and is ready to fight for his failed war. That leads us right back to the worn-out blame game that defines American politics.

From the NY Times:

That puts Mr. Bush in the difficult position of fighting the new Democratic majority on two fronts, both the war spending and the prosecutors. On Wednesday, he seemed in no mood to back down from the war spending fight. As he quoted a newspaper editorial — from The Los Angeles Times, though he did not mention it by name — accusing Democrats of “the worst kind of Congressional meddling in military strategy,” Mr. Bush appeared almost eager for a battle. And Democrats seemed eager to give it to him.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker, said Mr. Bush should “calm down with the threats,” and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said his impression was that Mr. Bush “doesn’t want anything other than a confrontation.”

Better that we have a fighting congress than a congress that blindly enables the will of a reckless president.

Labels: Iraq, National Politics, war

Posted by Andrew Warner at 8:41 PM | Permalink | Comments

Cincinnati City Council, in an expected 5-4 vote, is set to officially oppose the war.

The naysayers on council are arguing that the non-binding resolution will have little or zero impact on the situation in Iraq – but that view's a little short-sighted. After all, President George W. Bush's troop surge may mean another Cincinnatian having to pack up his things and kiss his mother goodbye. At least City Council can tell that mother they tried to prevent it.

If I were on council, that would provide me a little peace of mind.

But even so, Berding (and others) insist that there are more pressing issues on Council's plate.

""I would think that people would expect us to get the snow off Cincinnati streets, not to get our soldiers off the streets of Baghdad," Berding said to The Cincinnati Enquirer.

Eh.

Snow on the streets is troublesome. At its worst it might even cause an accident and take a life. The war in Iraq, on the other hand, takes lives every day – American, Iraqi, and even Cincinnatian.

Who is anyone to say 250+ cities standing against the war will have no impact? The president reads the news (or someone reads it to him). Who knows what'll happen when he sees his supporters dropping like flies.

Labels: Cincinnati, international politics Iraq, National Politics, war

Posted by Andrew Warner at 9:33 AM | Permalink

Going down the front page of Hines Sight is like reading a greatest hits list of bad news. This is your official warning: Don't get lulled into passivity by visions of sugarplums and the stress of trudging through suburban super-malls to find the latest Tickle-Me Elmo. I have a feeling the powers that be are counting on you not paying attention this time of year – the stakes are a wee bit high for you to let them be right.

First came the President's buildup of Naval forces in the Persian Gulf – part of of the conspicuous Bush/Ahmadinejad pissing contest. Who's more powerful? Who's more scary? Whose God is better? Who has a nicer haircut? Honestly, why is our President playing a game of chicken with a religious fanatic who has nothing to lose? If Ahmadinejad gets his country destroyed in the name of Islam, fighting evil America and what not, he'll probably get 1000 extra virgins in heaven. If we decide to clash swords, all we get is an even more bloated deficit, countless more lost lives, and even worse standing in the international community.

Not worth it.

And we're talking about the draft again, really? I thought we had already written off Representative Rangel, who just a few weeks ago admitted he was going to try to reinstate the draft, as a crazy person and put this idea back to sleep in the graveyard of bad ideas.

But for some reason Selective Service is "testing its machinery."

Don't worry though. The White House says it doesn't have plans to bring back the draft. That allays all my fears. It's not like they've fibbed to us in the past – we'll give them a pass for the WMDs, the cooked intelligence, and, of course, that whole "we're winning the war in Iraq" thing.

So enjoy the holidays everyone! Give your children nice presents, hugs and kisses, and all those warm things we do on the holidays. It's not long before you are kissing them goodbye when they're drafted to fight our war against Iran.

(cross-posted at Hines Sight)

Labels: international politics, National Politics, war

Posted by Andrew Warner at 12:47 PM | Permalink | Comments