Lack of Escalation in Congress

Well, so far Bush (or Shrub, as my mom calls him) has succeeded again in getting the debate in his court. At the exact time we need to be debating withdrawal of troops, he's moved us into debating the increase. Clever. So while we must, let's look at the Democrats (again, do we have to?). Americans elected them with a hope for change -- let's see, Harry Reid has introduced a resolution against the escalation/surge (voted on yesterday), big whup. A resolution is non-binding, although of course it helps to see the way the wind blows. Clinton voted against it. There goes her presidential hopes. Coleman voted against it, despite saying he's against the escalation (in its present form). Klobuchar voted for it, but if you read her editorial yesterday critically, you can see she probably won't vote for a measure with any teeth. See http://www.startribune.com/562/story/947961.html
She sure talks a good line, but so far, in the last eighteen months has been unwilling to step up to the plate and actually commit to voting against cutting off funding for the war. She keeps saying she doesn't want to leave the troops stranded. But that's even more disturbing, because it shows she hasn't even done a micron of homework on how defense/war funding works. There is 20-70 billion (depending on how you count it) in the pipeline for troop supply/procurement, already approved, from previous fiscal years (such funding can carry over from fiscal year to year). The troops are fine, as long as we withdraw now. The big question is, will the Bush administration complete the takeover of the Iraq oil contracts before Americans insist on withdrawal? Dresser and Halliburton's profits depend upon it!

Jan 11 protest

Here's something nice from my friend CC, her comments regarding the protests on Jan 11, 2007 following Bush's speech announcing war escalation: "I was interviewed by KSTP this a.m. at the anti-war escalation protest at Hwy 280 & Univ. Ave. It was fun and a good protest. The first one I'd been to since the Gulf War. About 200 people. The reporter started the interview by saying 'Aren't you a little old for this?' I said I was there because it's important and that I usually don't participate in protests. Someone mentioned that at 8:30 a petition was being taken to Norm Coleman. The reporter said 'But he's supporting no increase in troops" and I said "Maybe he'll become a Democrat again.' Later a couple of others went into their mini-tirade about Coleman being a chameleon and voting according to the polls. A small group of youth did a burial march carrying one of them prone on their shoulders, draped with an American flag. A couple of people played drums. The reporter asked me what I would do (which took me off guard) and I replied, 'I'd arm them all with musical instruments and we'd have a dance.' When you think about it, that's a better idea."

Give the dog a bone

Maybe I'm paranoid, but all the fuss this week about the additional 21,000 troops reminds me of the meat you throw into a pack of dogs to get you to leave you alone. Not that we shouldn't fuss about it! The logic of it is truly staggering -- we've been failing, so let's fail harder! But really, at this point in time we on the left were expecting to be debating the funding for the war, and instead, what the administration has lobbed out has made whether or not to INCREASE troops the issue! Clever.