Bush Forced Congress to Back Down?

Poor Reporting

I read an article on Newsvine this AM by some guy named Terence Hunt, who's an AP White House correspondent. This piece of crap article is a perfect example of what drives me nuts about reporters.

White House PR Machine

Hunt was obviously spoon fed a line of crap by some White House press liason, and rather than question any of it, rather than do a little digging to get more sides of the story, he whipped out his laptop and cranked out a story from a White House press release, writing manure like Bush "...scheduled a news conference to talk about the unpopular war and the relentless violence." *cough* I bet it was an email or a fax, like an email from The Office of Political Affairs, krove@press.whitehouse.gov, or something sweet like that. Or, how about this load of steaming crap: "The Democrats backed down because they were unable to achieve the two-thirds majority needed to override Bush's veto." Really? The Democrats back down because they couldn't send Bush a veto-proof bill?

Grow Balls

Come on, that's not true. Even if the Dems hadn't passed a veto-proof bill, they still could have passed a bill. Then, it would be on BUSH to pass off on it or whip out his veto pen. It would have been on Bush to fund the troops. Congress, hundreds of individuals mind you, could have said that they did their job, funded the troops, and then sent the bill to Bush. The Democrats weren't forced to do anything; they CHOSE to back down. Big difference. The Democrats were afraid to head back to their home districts under a White House PR campaign smearing them for not funding the troops. Too many Democrats in Congress were simply afraid to fight.

Being Right Helps

And it's a fight the Democrats would have won, had they chose to wage it, because the facts are on their side. The White House has run this war for more than four years with no end in sight, a huge lose of treasury, major loss of life on both the American and Iraqi side, less respect for American leadership around the world, more acts of terrorism worldwide, and NO clear path to anything resembling a victory going forward. It's time for someone else to force a change, time for Congress to do its job.

Political Strategery

I'm sure it was partly a political calculation, with some Dems thinking better opportunities to tie timetables to spending bills are coming down the pike, but it's still a huge disappointment.

Bush is taking advantage of the Democrats' perceived weakness over the Iraq spending bill to spread more half truths about Iran, al Qaeda's plans in Iraq, our brilliant successes in the war, and then to try to tie everything together under the auspices of the glorious War on Terror.

I believe President Bush is playing a political game and making yet another move in that gamet today. He intends to lay the groundwork to be able to skip right through September and October without any drawdown of forces in Iraq, regardless of the direction of the war in Iraq. He will stress the situation with Iran, doing his best to tie it in with the ongoing war in Iraq. Matter of fact, I think folks better brace themselves for an actual buildup of forces in Iraq and increasingly aggressive rhetoric against Iran. Through tricks of political and military slight of hand, by timing the arrival of replacement troops with the cycling out of tired ones, there will be periods where well over 150,000 US troops will be working "on the ground" in Iraq. Mark my words, and it sucks to no end.

Tune in this afternoon for more White House spin-doctoring, folks. Bring your barf bag.

• May 24, 2007

Comments

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it

Subscribe for updates

Click here to manage subscription