When love is gone, there's always justice.
And when justice is gone, there's always force.
And when force is gone, there's always Mom.
Hi, Mom! ---Laurie Anderson
I was looking at some postings from Think Progress and I came across one about Tom Daschle going on the Bill Press show this morning (I'm so mad I missed it) to debunk Karl Rove's claim that Daschle, mad with power, dragged a helpless George W. Bush into war with Iraq.
I'm guessing the Rove interview was cut off before he revealed the second phase of Daschle's nefarious plan: lose the majority to the Republicans, then sneak out in the middle of the night with the Maltese Falcon.
But before this gets out of hand, can we nip this blatant re-writing of history and misconception of the current Administration in the bud?
This spin takes the cake. I can only assume it was made by a TP troll:
Let’s consider a few facts.
- Tom Daschle was Senate Majority Leader at the time.
- The President cannot force Congress to vote on anything.
- The vote happened in the middle of October, more than two weeks before the 2002 elections.
I’m not saying that Rove is correct, but he’s not as wrong as some would have it. The Congress voted on Iraq at that time because the US wanted to pressure the UN to consider a new resolution for inspections, and the sooner the better.
Anyone claiming that the President forced the vote is lying - the President cannot force the Congress to vote on anything.
Quite deceptive, no? Sandwiching two truths (#1 and #3) between a lie (#2) like that. Well, since Think Progress has already documented people from the Bush White House who thinks Rove's claim is full of shit, there's no need for me to repeat it.
Instead, let me give the best example of why the claim that the "President cannot force Congress to vote on anything" is ludicrous. Read this and tell me that there isn't any forcing:
Congress needs to start by passing a bill to fund our troops in combat. Beginning in February, I submitted detailed funding requests to Congress to fund these operations in the war on terror. Yet some in Congress are withholding this funding because they want to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders. Instead of listening to the judgment of General Petraeus, they are threatening to withhold money he needs unless they can mandate an arbitrary date of withdrawal.
This month more of our troops will return home as a result of the success we're seeing in Iraq. People are coming home. For Congress to insist on setting an arbitrary date for withdrawal would put the gains General Petraeus and our troops have made in danger -- and that would threaten the security of our country. It's unconscionable to deny funds to our troops in harm's way because some in Congress want to force a self-defeating policy -- especially when we're seeing the benefits of success.
To me, that sounds like Bush is putting the Democratically-lead Congress in a corner: "Fund my war or every troop casualty will be your fault." He even said he sent details! And by making it sound like the funding request is coming from General Petraeus, Bush is also painting the picture that he's just an innocent bystander who's trying to make everyone happy.
But this isn't the first time Bush has done this. Back in April 2007, Bush had another "emergency supplemental request" that opened with:
Seventy-eight days ago I sent Congress a request for emergency war funding that our troops urgently need. I made it clear to Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill that I'm willing to discuss our differences on the way forward in Iraq. But I also made it clear our troops should not be caught in the middle of that discussion.
Yesterday, Democratic leaders announced that they plan to send me a bill that will fund our troops only if we agree to handcuff our generals, add billions of dollars in unrelated spending, and begin to pull out of Iraq by an arbitrary date.
I'm disappointed that the Democratic leadership has chosen this course. The bill they announced yesterday includes some of the worst parts of the measures they had earlier passed with narrow majorities in the House and the Senate. They know I'm going to veto a bill containing these provisions, and they know that my veto will be sustained.
But instead of fashioning a bill I could sign, the Democratic leaders chose to further delay funding our troops, and they chose to make a political statement. That's their right. But it is wrong for our troops and it's wrong for our country. To accept the bill proposed by the Democratic leadership would be to accept a policy that directly contradicts the judgment of our military commanders. I strongly believe that the Democrats' proposal would undermine our troops and threaten the safety of the American people here at home. And here is why...
and ended with:
...Last November, the American people said they were frustrated and wanted a change in our strategy in Iraq. I listened. Today, General David Petraeus is carrying out a strategy that is dramatically different from our previous course. The American people did not vote for failure, and that is precisely what the Democratic leadership's bill would guarantee.
It's not too late for Congress to do the right thing and to send me a bill that gives our troops and the commanders the funds and flexibility they need. I'm willing to meet with leaders in Congress as many times as it takes to resolve our differences. Yet, if the Democratic leaders insist on using the bill to make a political statement, they will leave me with only one option: I will veto it. And then I'll work with Congress to pass a clean bill that funds our troops without handcuffing our commanders, spending billions of dollars unrelated to the war, and forcing our nation to withdraw on the enemy's terms.
VP Cheney also chimmed in, claiming that the Democrats where making a "political calculation" which translates into "not supporting the troops." These friendly little reminders of the President's constituional duty as well as what Congress' job was continued. After sending Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, and Budget Director Rob Portman to babysit, Congress suddenly was able to get Bush the spending bill he could sign. And boy was he happy (emphasis mine):
Congress voted yesterday to provide our troops with the funding and flexibility they need to protect our country, and I was pleased to sign the bill today. Rather than mandate arbitrary timetables for troop withdrawals or micromanage our military commanders, this legislation enables our servicemen and women to follow the judgment of commanders on the ground.
[snip]
I am pleased that Congress removed billions of dollars in unrequested spending. I would like to have removed even more, but this package was part of the effort to move forward and ensure our troops in harm's way have the resources they need.
So let me close by saying, "If the President can make Congress think that acting otherwise will make them look bad in the eyes of American soldiers and possibly cost them their seats, he can force Congress to vote on pretty much anything." That's what Bush did nine months ago, and that's what he's doing now.
At least, until Mom steps in.