Middlebrow Democrat sites such as Daily Kos tell us the "antiwar" legislation just passed by the US House is good because it makes Bush look bad, or something. Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com notes that "the bill gives more money for the military than requested by Bush." In a blog post today, Raimondo responds to David Sirota, "the resident 'radical' over at the HuffPuffPost," who thinks the legislation, which Bush will veto if it ever gets to his desk, is just grand.
In a veritable cascade of Orwellian doublespeak, Sirota claims:
It is a courageous move because it is never, ever easy to swallow a compromise, even if it is clearly the right thing to do to achieve long-term goals. These Members of Congress played hardball from the beginning, and that hardball made sure this bill included strong, binding legislation to end the war.
If this is "strong and binding," then one can only wonder what would be weak: read it and you'll find that the actual wording of the legislation leaves it up to the White House to "certify" whether "progress" is being made in Iraq -- in which case none of the requirements, including a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, have to be met. Itís true that such a certification would only delay "redeployment" of our troops, but then all the President has to do is assert that forces remaining in Iraq after March 1, 2008 are specifically in pursuit of Al Qaeda, or other terrorist groups with "global reach" -- which is the argument heís been making since Day One -- and they can stay -- indefinitely.

This is "strong" and "binding"?
Why should we accept a "compromise," anyway? The majority of Americans want to end the war and disagree with Bush's handling of it; every day that passes means more money spent and more lives lost in the 52nd State.

- tom moody 3-24-2007 7:40 pm

i would say your middlebrow crack is unnecessarily derisive although i wouldnt blanch were i to be considered among them. and dkos is hardly monolithic in their opinions. heres one voice on the front page that expresses misgivings over the bill.

As could be seen here yesterday on the Daily Kos Front Page, in the Diaries and across wwwLand, the debate over the supplemental has generated considerable dissent among people who are usually strong allies. Well-known bloggers who might normally be expected to come down on one side surprised readers by coming down on the other.

If a bill with a withdrawal deadline manages to clear both houses, as now seems possible, the media are likely to present it as a Democratic victory. That may put the squeeze on the President to make good on his promise to veto the bill. On the other hand, he may just muggle it up with one of his bizarre signing statements, taking the money, and tossing away the bit about withdrawal.

What he does will in part determine whether this will turn out to be better than no deal at all or a very bad deal.
that said, raimondo may very well be correct in his deeper reading of the bill and its consequences. and the political class is still lagging behind public opinion as they so often do, and the consequences stemming from that are not trivial. but then at one point 70% of the american public thought saddam was at least in part responsible for 9/11 so i dont exactly have absolute faith in the middlebrows in our midst either.
- dave 3-24-2007 8:27 pm

Any site that banishes you for suggesting there was something fishy about 9/11 is stolidly, squalidly middlebrow.

My point isn't that the American people are wise so much as bewilderment that anyone feels they have to "compromise" with neocon fringers who have utterly failed at geopolitics (but unfortunately still have the mass media wearing kneepads on their behalf).
- tom moody 3-24-2007 8:49 pm

Were you banned too Tom? I got banned for talking about AIPAC. The folks that got purged from his blogroll are starting a new type of dkos type blogs...it involves My Left Wing and the Booman Tribune.

As far as the bill not being very strong, probably. Even though a lot of that extra money goes toward health care for all the gullible young men who have been forever maimed...But I really think what's interesting is that Bush will veto it anyway! Thus cementing his reputation. Then, as Booman, has said, the dems should do nothing. Or pass even stronger bills just to piss him off....The problem is that I don't think the dems have the resolve for that. If Bush makes the same bet he'll probably win 90 percent of the time...

Philip Shropshire

- Steelydan (guest) 3-25-2007 4:10 am

i cant believe they are banning people for that shit. i think mydd has a similar policy regarding 9/11. still doesnt strike me as particularly middlebrow but i cant think of a more artful term at the moment.
- dave 3-25-2007 4:25 am

add a comment to this page:

Your post will be captioned "posted by anonymous,"
or you may enter a guest username below:

Line breaks work. HTML tags will be stripped.