The Funding Wimp Out

I don't understand the cave in on the funding bill. Jim Webb (D-VA) says it's because the Senate wouldn't overturn Bush's veto. But I agree with the DailyKos, "Webb, like most of his colleagues, bought into the b.s. right-wing frame that voting against this supplemental was voting against our troops. And the congressional Democrats were wholly incapable of making the ridiculously simple observation that they were funding the troops, it was Bush who was vetoing that money. Ultimately, as other Democrats have said, they didn't "relish" going home on Memorial Day weekend and getting criticized by Mr. 28% on an issue in which vast majorities of Americans oppose the president."

digby says "But I never in a million years thought that we would re-run 2004 again, and the prospect of having to watch our candidates do verbal gymnastics explaining why they didn't vote for the one thing that could have ended the war --- de-funding --- is almost incomprehensible. Every single day the Republicans are on television trash talking the Dems, saying, "if you are so against this war why won't you use the power o' the purse!" Here we have an opportunity for the presidential candidates to take a free shot and shut down this line of argument right now --- and they aren't jumping at the chance."

John Murtha (D-PA) says "Some have suggested that since the president refuses to compromise, Democrats should refuse to send him anything. I disagree. There is a point when the money for our troops in Iraq will run out, and when it does, our men and women serving courageously in Iraq will be the ones who will suffer, not this president." He then goes on to say that September will be the key date and since his information is that the surge won't work, he thinks we'll have enough votes them. He points out that 418 Americans have lost their lives in this latest surge; apparently he doesn't care about those that will lose theirs till September.

As Glenn Greenwald writes "What does seem clear is that one of the principal factors accounting for the reluctance of Democrats to advocate de-funding is that the standard corruption that infects our political discourse has rendered the de-funding option truly radioactive. Republicans and the media have propagated -- and Democrats have frequently affirmed -- the proposition that to de-fund a war is to endanger the 'troops in the field.'"

"This unbelievably irrational, even stupid, concept has arisen and has now taken root -- that to cut off funds for the war means that, one day, our troops are going to be in the middle of a vicious fire-fight and suddenly they will run out of bullets -- or run out of gas or armor -- because Nancy Pelosi refused to pay for the things they need to protect themselves, and so they are going to find themselves in the middle of the Iraq war with no supplies and no money to pay for what they need. That is just one of those grossly distorting, idiotic myths the media allows to become immovably lodged in our political discourse and which infects our political analysis and prevents any sort of rational examination of our options."

Maybe the Democrats should get Scott Adams to write their scripts. "It’s easy to know who supports the troops more. Anyone who supports policies that would save the most troop lives, and/or reduce injuries, is the most supportive." Read the whole thing it's worth it.

And is it too much to ask for the Democrats to figure out a way to combat the rhetoric? Consider this from the DailyKos, "Consider that the main point of contention -- indeed the only point of contention -- between what Congress has already passed and what Bush will accept has nothing but nothing but nothing to do with the funding. It's definitionally impossible for that to be the case, because every version of the supplemental either house has passed has had more funding in it than the president requested. What Bush and his apologists object to is accountability accompanying that funding."

And to be more mystifying, "70% disapprove of the job the Bush Administration has done [helping returning veterans] and 65% do not think the Department of Veterans Affairs has done well." and yet "Here's what's interesting about this. While the public sees Bush's policies as wasteful of the lives of American soldiers and against their interests -- frequent polls show that Americans think the war was not worth fighting, and now this poll shows that they think he's letting Iraq veterans down -- Americans do appear to think of Bush as overwhelmingly supportive of the troops in a general way."