Look out, it’s a trap!!
Ronk over at DailyKos has posed the inevitable question in light of Bush’s speech last night :
- GWB wants an $87B budget bump to “stay the course” in Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s going to get it. Congress is not about to let our troops go without boots, or let Baghdad go without the basics (if we can help it), or let Halliburton go without pork, or let that pork go without gravy. Not gonna happen.
But shouldn’t the gang that maneuvered us into this ambush pay some kind of price for the bail-out?
What pound of shame-faced POTUS flesh should Congress, Kofi Annan, the Axis of Chocolate, the CIA or the 4th ID non-com’s demand in return for their sign-off on Plan Iraq, Version 2.0?
I can’t help but think this is a big political trap by Bush and Co. If any Democrats go into the negotiations for the $87 billion with an attitude of “What are we going to get in return?” then they’re going to see their demands used against them. If they demand that Bush roll back his tax cuts, then they’re going to see headlines like “Bush: Dems hate tax cuts more than terrorists”. They’d be much better off making Bush try to figure out a way to get $87 billion out of a busted budget himself and then fighting all the little battles about spending cuts in relative privacy.
5 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You should have illustrated this post with this guy:
http://www.x-entertainment.com/messages/262.html
“It’s a trap!”
–Kynn
Comment by Kynn Bartlett — September 8, 2003 @ 7:18 pm
Yeah, I agree with your take on the discussion over at kos. A deliberately-set trap or not, the Dems have seemed willing to step in them lately. Here were my comments over there…
Demand accountability and full disclosure only. Pretty hard for those on the right to argue that (and some may actually support it).
Repealing tax cuts and such won’t help the situation in Iraq or the economy and will supply a defense for the Bushies next year. Asking for anything not directly related to this mess in Iraq politicizes the issue too much, and will backfire.
Give ‘em the money, but insist on complete clarity of all monies spent before, during and after. Down to the penny. With regular updates. Release of all pertinent WH documents, Cheney’s Energy transcripts, Wilson fiasco, missing 9/11 pages, WMD reports. All of it. “Go massive. Sweep it all up.”
Speaking of Rumsfeld. He’s the scapegoat. Someone should swing for this and he’s the public face most easily linked to the screwed up operation.
As far as treaties, etc. That’s up to the UN. They should make the US bailout contingent upon Bush signing all pertinent treaties.
It’s win-win for the Dems and UN…
Comment by A2 Matt — September 8, 2003 @ 10:04 pm
BTW, this was my first time commenting on your site (I think?), but I’ve been enjoying it for some time. Great work. I consider you the authority on church/state issues in particular
Comment by A2 Matt — September 8, 2003 @ 10:05 pm
A trap?
Here’s an interesting idea: the $87 billion request for Iraq could be a trap for Democrats….
Trackback by Orrill Reports: They Report, I Decide — September 9, 2003 @ 7:00 am
It seems that Congress’s response to the States cries for Budget help…stop spending so much, make it last!..should be handed to the President. “We gave you $ 79 Billion in April, make it last!”
Shame on Congress! They squabble over Perscrition Drugs, Medicare, Headstart and Americorp. And now it looks like the purse strings loosen because the President wants to play War? Is this fiscal responsibility?
They should tell him to bring the Troops back home now or, make due with the money already allocated.
Gee.. it sounds like the Repubican ploy.. don’t say no, just don’t provide funding. LET’S STOP THE FUNDING FOR WAR!
Comment by Alan Patterson — September 9, 2003 @ 12:15 pm