Psychopolitik 2.0

Am I the only one that finds it sick that such a big deal is being made of the queen of england being in the US?  I mean c’mon, to us she should just be some random rich old bat, who cares?!?

Pansies…:

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.

Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president’s veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, “transition” the U.S. military role and show “a reasonable way to end this war.” (emphasis mine)

They make it seem like a timetable for withdrawal was the “radical” strategy. Fuck that, that’s tilting their own playing field against them. Saying “sure we’ll fund the war, but it cannot be open ended” is already a compromise, they could’ve just tried to repeal authorization entirely if they felt like it. If they had any brains, they would’ve trumpeted to any media that would listen something along the lines of “We provided funding and a clear way out, we did OUR job. Bush rejected it, preferring that the US military wander aimlessly with no real goal AND shrinking resources. So, who exactly hates the troops, again?”, then proceeded to sit on the issue until either Bush cracked or his own party started telling him to approve a timetable just so the funds wouldn’t dry up.

Shit like this is why I don’t vote. Even if by chance someone does say something that makes sense, they never stand up for it, and in the end the circus never leaves town. If this is what the Dem majority thinks the definition of backbone is, then they’re lost already.

Sometimes when they show on TV Bush giving a speech, I like to check out the background he’s standing in front of for some reason.  While he was yet again repeating the “we fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” canard this morning, I noticed the background behind him said “associated general contractors of america”.  Did a search, and found their website.  Apparently it’s a trade association for the construction industry, and a rather proud corporatist “partner” with the State.

Gee, I wonder what the significance of that meeting was…

Spotted in an article about yesterdays immigration rallies:

At a rally in Phoenix that drew about 15,000 people, there were opposing views.

An illegal immigrant from Mexico declared “We are not criminals. We’re looking for work to support our families.” But a 40-year Phoenix resident said “I want to send them back. They’ve completely destroyed our city.” (emphasis mine)

Think about the ways possible to “destroy” a city, or at least degrade it.  Does working as a non-citizen rank up there with, say, mugging people?  I think not.  In fact, I would rank it under even pissing on the sidewalk.

See, when people like this say that illegal immigration is hurting their city, you can basically chop off the “illegal” part.  They mean that the appearance of more “mexicans” (they’re all mexicans to them…) is aesthetically unpleasant to them, a complaint that can be dismissed right off.  The only legitimate complaint that can made against anyone is if they violate the rights of others, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with citizenship status.

Veto #2, point by point. All emphasis mine:

Twelve weeks ago I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave young men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need.

Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. So a few minutes ago, I vetoed the bill.

As opposed to substituting the opinions of a bunch of neo-imperialists for the judgment of people who actually know what they’re talking about when it comes to foreign policy & national security? I distinctly recall anyone who said Iraq would be anything less than a total cakewalk being written off as a kook (and in the case of those in the administration, shown the door).

Here’s why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable. First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That withdrawal could start as early as July 1, and it would have to start no later than Oct. 1, regardless of the situation on the ground.

Define what a “natural” deadline would be.

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing.

Contrary to previous assumptions, the majority of the violence is NOT of foreign origin. In other words, “the enemy” in this statement is inherently referring to Iraqis. Needless to say, they would know US troops are leaving without having to be told.

All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq.

Remember when there was all that talk about training Iraqi soldiers? Notice how that died down? What happened was many people joined for training, only to desert and join the insurgency. Others are openly using their positions to engage in sectarian violence — with an implied wink from the civilian leadership. The idea that there’s the government on one side and “teh terrahriss” on the other, clearly demarcated, is ridiculous.

I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people

Solid majorities of Iraqis want troops out and actively support attacks against them! Under the circumstances, the only way that it’d be reasonable to think leaving would demoralize them would be if one assumed that they took some sort of sick enjoyment out of US troops being killed. No, they support them because it’s the only way they see to get us to LEAVE, they’re thinking of it in terms of defending sovereignty. If some other country invaded the US we’d be doing the same thing, this attitude is not unique to the middle east.

Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means America’s commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C.

They do already. In fact, this is part of the reason that security contractors mercenaries have been so big in Iraq — it’s called “plausible deniability”. Neos regularly complain about “strings” attached to the military, if they still have something to bitch about after 7 years of Bush then that’s his fault.

Bush would’ve been better off just saying “zero nine foxtrot nine one one zero two nine delta seven four echo three five bravo delta eight four one five six charlie five six three five six eight eight charlie zero…“. It makes about as much sense.