home

Waiting For The Godot Republicans: Boehner Edition

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:01:48 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Sigh. Here we do NOT go again:

"Over the course of the next three to four months, we'll have some idea how well the plan's working. . . . By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B?"

Sure they will. This is deja vu all over again:

I think it will be rather clear in the next 60 to 90 days as to whether this plan is going to work. . . . We need to know, as we . . . move through these benchmarks, that the Iraqis are doing what they have to do. -Boehner, 1/23/07

Democrats and anti-war groups that are waiting for Republicans to move to end the Debacle now sound like this:

Vladimir: Well? Shall we go?
Estragon: Yes, let's go.

They do not move.

< Soprano's Final Season: Episode 82, "Walk Like a Man" | How Blogs Reflect Society >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Waiting For The Godot Republicans: Boehner Edition | 54 comments (54 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Perfect (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:08:33 PM EST
    Vladimir: Well? Shall we go?
    Estragon: Yes, let's go.

    They do not move.
    Oh, how I'd love to jump in here w/a review of (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:19:13 PM EST
    the Godot production I saw at UCLA recently.  The actors, all from The Gate Theatre in Dublin, have played various Godot rolls together for 25 years.  Masterful.  

    Parent
    rolls? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Miss Devore on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:21:00 PM EST
    for shame.

    Parent
    Good gotcha. I was going to correct it just to (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:23:16 PM EST
    head you off.

    Parent
    can't (none / 0) (#14)
    by Miss Devore on Sun May 06, 2007 at 11:28:08 PM EST
    touch this.

    Parent
    cabbage rolls, perhaps (none / 0) (#18)
    by amethyst on Mon May 07, 2007 at 12:27:26 AM EST
    or those little phyllo-pastry rolls - "borek"

    Or Tootsie Rolls.

    Parent

    Why not jump in? (none / 0) (#20)
    by amethyst on Mon May 07, 2007 at 12:31:01 AM EST
    Tell us about the production you saw.

    Parent
    It was wonderful. My daughter, who lives in (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Mon May 07, 2007 at 12:49:13 AM EST
    Dublin knows one of the actors--Lucky in this production.  I told her about the review in the Ny Times and she sd. the company was in San Francisco at the moment, which is when I checked out future performances.  Then UCLA.  The actors' timing was perfect and I hadn't realized there was so much humor in the play from the other, oh-so-serious productions I'd seen.  Watching the actors was as enjoyable as hearing a really excellent chamber music concert.

    Parent
    At least something (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Mon May 07, 2007 at 10:59:48 AM EST
    Actually happened. Reality is more like fiction than fiction is in this case.

    Parent
    Oh, not all that much happened. It was a Beckett (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Mon May 07, 2007 at 01:22:32 PM EST
    play after all.  But the talking was glorious.

    Parent
    Not to be underestimated (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by squeaky on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:31:13 PM EST
    As a major event. The play began and ended.

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:32:39 PM EST
    Wish I had been there. It sounds as if it was great.

    Parent
    None of my friends was interested in going from (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:37:18 PM EST
    San Diego to UCLA on a Sunday.  One sd., oh that's never been my favorite play.  Their loss.  Also got there so early I stopped to see the icons at the Getty.  They were from St. Catherine's on the Sinai Peninsula.  

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:19:01 PM EST
    Icons and Icon, sounds like a spectacular wkend.

    Parent
    There is some good news in this... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by dell on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:26:50 PM EST
    ...Even the congressional Republicans are now down to half a Friedman unit.  Patience, or the electoral calendar, are running out.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 07, 2007 at 12:05:02 AM EST


    Parent
    This is scarier than you think. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Pneumatikon on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:56:49 PM EST
    It's very clear to me the "eites" of this country have put us on notice they can do whatever they want and there's nothing we can do about it. It doesn't even matter if it's stupid and against the national interest. In fact, that's the point of this exercise. They're rubbing it in our faces. We need to think very hard about what this means and what we are willing to do about it.

    I agree with Pneumatikon (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by SeeEmDee on Mon May 07, 2007 at 06:55:03 AM EST
    The rubber of the illusion of democratic institutions having actual power to change things is meeting the road of the reality comprised of a power structure which recognizes no limitations...and the rubber is being shredded.

    The supposed Democratic Party takeover of the Congress is being co-opted, diluted and diffused to nebulosity by that power structure. Welcome to the reality of 'civil society' as practiced and fostered by our supposed 'betters'.

    Fred Kagan doesn't have a "Plan B." (none / 0) (#1)
    by profmarcus on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:09:18 PM EST
    after shooting off his mouth today in today's nyt, maybe fred ought to ring up boehner and have a little chat...

    And, yes, I DO take it personally

    I gave up on Kagan today once I realized he is (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:59:00 PM EST
    AEG.  Now Frank Rich--that was a good read.

    Parent
    But the others wait in Casablanca, (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:34:08 PM EST
    and wait and wait and wait. . .

    Toot (none / 0) (#3)
    by Miss Devore on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:48:34 PM EST
    gettin' all literary on us.

    Dems are writing "Deliver us to Hagel"

    On A More Positive Note (none / 0) (#6)
    by talex on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:48:37 PM EST
    Pelosi Stands Strong - Options Are On The Table -
     Poor Boehner Has No Control

    Bush assigns chief of staff to negotiate on war funding  
    By Mike Soraghan  
    May 03, 2007  

    President Bush has assigned his chief of staff to negotiate with Congress on funding the Iraq war.

    Chief of Staff Josh Bolten is set to meet today with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). National Security Adviser Steven Hadley and Office of Management and Budget Chief Rob Portman are to assist Bolten in the negotiations.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reportedly told Bush that his officials should negotiate with House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.), meaning that both sides have chosen their negotiators but given little solid indication where the negotiations will lead.
    ...
    But the question of benchmarks is sparking a disagreement between House and Senate Republicans. McConnell has indicated that many members of his conference support the idea of benchmarks to monitor the progress of the war, while Boehner has said he is unwilling to accept benchmarks that include penalties for the Iraqi government.

    "The leader -- and actually all of us -- cosponsored a bill 60 days ago that would put expectations for the Iraqis. There was no interest in that on the part of the Democrats," Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) told reporters yesterday when asked if Republican leadership supported the idea of benchmarks.
    ...
    Pelosi said Democrats are interested in working with GOP lawmakers and the administration, though she did not mention the word "compromise" and added, "Make no mistake, Democrats are committed to ending this war."

    Well to bad for Boehner. He is not in the Senate where he can thwart legislation. In the House he has little control in what comes to the floor for a vote. And it appears that Blunt still supports them.

    Benchmarks are a good thing. And they could probably get more votes from Repubs that the last bill which inches them in our direction.

    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bush-assigns-chief-of-staff-to-negotiate-on-war-funding-2007-05- 02.html

    Sure (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 07, 2007 at 12:06:05 AM EST
    Whatever you say.

    Parent
    Oh thanks (none / 0) (#24)
    by talex on Mon May 07, 2007 at 10:12:21 AM EST
    But it is not me saying it. It is The Hill.

    Unless of course you are referring to my comments. In which case your snarky remark suggests you disagree with them.

    So you really think Boehner controls what comes to the floor for a vote? And that benchmarks are not a good thing?

    And oh yeah - I'm still waiting for those non-existent links to your musings on the possible political aftermath of defunding and how it could affect our country. ;)

    Parent

    Here is the link (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 07, 2007 at 10:16:48 AM EST
    link to the section War In Iraq, which I provided for you earlier.

    You will see the many posts linked there.

    You will see that I do not think much of bencjmarks that only require bush certify that they have been met. Have you read the legislation in question?

    Parent

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Edger on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:37:09 AM EST
    The more often you and I give him links the more vehemently he has to keep demanding links he says he asks for but never gets.

    I'd give him links to his demands but then he'd have to deny seeing them.

    Parent

    Thanks For Nothing (none / 0) (#29)
    by talex on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:53:30 AM EST
    I specifically asked for links pertaining to how defunding could affect our political standing and how that could possibly cause us to lose in '08 - and how losing could affect this country with more wars and more deaths and  with domestic consequences also. [I have told you that a least four times already)

    I am not about to read every one of your posts looking for something you have not written about. You just have not written about those things nor have you even thought about them. If you had you would direct me to the pertinent posts.

    Sorry you know I won't play your games.

    Just take some time to think about the consequences of defunding as I have laid out - unless of course you don't care about consequences.

    Bush didn't care about consequences either. You would be following in great footsteps.

    Parent

    Since they all do deal with the politics (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 07, 2007 at 12:27:33 PM EST
    I do not know what more I can do for you.

    No one can say I did not try.

    HAve a good day.

    Parent

    I didn't ask (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by talex on Mon May 07, 2007 at 12:53:06 PM EST
    for politics in general.

    I asked for something specific to see if you actually even gave it some thought little on blogged it. YOUR HAVEN'T. But you are to stubborn to admit it.

    I do not know what more I can do for you

    Think about it. That's what you can do.

    You haven't argued against it so you know it is valid.

    HAve a good day

    Parent

    Instead of your continual baiting attempts (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Edger on Mon May 07, 2007 at 01:14:36 PM EST
    provide a synopsis of how many rethugs you've managed to "peel off" to support defunding the debacle, and the arguments you've used to do so, to show how it can be done.

    Or is baiting democrats a higher priority for you?

    Parent

    Awfully (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:15:30 PM EST
    quiet over here now....

    Parent
    heh (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Sailor on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:47:10 PM EST
    unless of course you don't care about consequences.
    Sounds like ppj just got another sock puppet.

    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Mon May 07, 2007 at 12:17:14 PM EST
    Redux.

    Parent
    Obama Pushes For Presidential Veto (none / 0) (#36)
    by talex on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:17:01 PM EST
    Obama challenges senators to change Iraq vote
    By JENS MANUEL KROGSTAD, Courier Staff Writer

    WATERLOO --- Presidential candidate Barack Obama on Sunday launched a public campaign to win enough votes to override a presidential veto of a troop withdrawal from Iraq.

    In an exclusive interview with the Courier, Obama said he believed a phased troop withdrawal could be pushed through Congress this fall if the public applies enough pressure on Republicans over the summer.

    "Wherever I go, I want to make sure the people understand we're just a few votes shy of starting to bring our troops home. It's not going to be immediate, but I think by the fall, if there's been concerted pressure over the summer (it could happen)," he said. "I think there are a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that already recognize the prospects of military resolution to the problem in Iraq is doubtful."
    ...


    http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2007/05/07/news/top_story/doc463ee9468f90f872801167.txt

    Given that I have been advocating this for over a month now it is nice to see Obamba agreeing.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 07, 2007 at 07:12:06 PM EST
    Good for you and Obama.

    You'll see that my agreements with Obama on this are, well, never.

    Parent

    Never? (none / 0) (#46)
    by talex on Mon May 07, 2007 at 09:05:25 PM EST
    Never?

    No big deal about Obama - he is not my candidate of choice - and you can think the way you want about him.

    But Obama is not the real point made in your reply. A veto proof majority is. That is what you disagree with him about. And I imagine anyone else who brings it up.

    But never? So you are saying that if tomorrow miraculously there was a veto proof majority that you would not like that or support it?

    That is pretty astounding.

    You must be the only one in the world other than Bush and bin Laden's crew who would not want to have the Iraq Debacle end with a veto proof majority.

    You are way out there my friend. Way out there.

    Parent

    talex, this is the first moment i have had (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by conchita on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:03:56 PM EST
    to catch up on talkleft since yesterday afternoon.  since i was not able to respond to you then, i will now.  however, i am not responding on btd's behalf; he does that well enough on his own.  

    you said

    You must be the only one in the world other than Bush and bin Laden's crew who would not want to have the Iraq Debacle end with a veto proof majority.

    i don't think anyone here, except for a few of the "social liberals", want anything more than to have the Iraq Debacle end.  whether or not it is with a veto proof majority is not the issue.  

    i want to see the occupation end now, not in september or october - if indeed it comes to pass then.  the longer we are there the more likely it is that innocent iraqis like this blogger's cousin and americans' cousins in the military will die.  the longer we are in iraq, the longer we are in the gulf, exposing us to a larger likelihood of war with iran - now not after the elections in 2008.

    benchmarks for the iraqis?  what the hell right do we as occupiers have to impose benchmarks on the iraqis?  the benchmarks should be incumbent on us as occupiers - how many hours of electricity, how much reconstruction has been accomplished, how many iraqis are employed in the process, how many hospitals have been restored, how many schools are functioning? etc.  instead, we have benchmarks for the iraqis to pass legislation about their oil that will benefit u.s. oil companies.  and you wonder why the iraqi congress will go on hiatus?  

    talex, the iraqis want the occupiers out of their country now, not at the end of the summer when more have fled the country or lost their lives.  and the american public wants the u.s. out of iraq now, not at the end of the summer after petraeus et al have fed more young lives into the meat grinder.  

    i will stand by reid-feingold because i think it is the most direct approach, calling for withdrawal to begin within 120 days of enactment.  in a word it is funding withdrawal.  i think it places lives over politics.  and if it can't win a veto-proof majority in votes, i would send it to the wh anyway and by default not fund further ware efforts.  

    waiting until the end of the summer to appease republicans, and sacrificing lives for political ends in the process, will only enrage anti-war activists and convince dems who want to believe in their party that it is a waste of time.  enough of appeasement and rapprochement at the expense of lives.  benchmarks, smenchmarks, it sounds like b.s. to me.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#53)
    by talex on Tue May 08, 2007 at 10:38:19 AM EST
    But you post has little to do with my post to which you responded to. Yours goes on to express your feelings on something that has little directly to do with Obama's statement on veto proof majorities. That is what I want to discuss as a result of my post.

    I will quickly say this though after reading your post. You are free to support any strategy you want as we all are. But FYI Reid-Feingold is far from what is now being discussed in either the Senate or the House.

    Parent

    That they are caving is obvious. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:09:18 AM EST


    Parent
    talex? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Mon May 07, 2007 at 10:00:16 PM EST
    How long have you had this delusion that you can read minds anyway? Has it been a problem before the past few days? Do you take medication for it?

    Parent
    If you are serious (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:01:42 AM EST
    You need help.

    Parent
    Really! (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by talex on Tue May 08, 2007 at 10:24:47 AM EST
    You said:
    You'll see that my agreements with Obama on this are, well, never.

    On this. Clearly meaning you would never agree with him on advocating for a 'veto proof majority'. That is what you said you would not agree with him on.

    Now you say I need help? How so? You are the one who seems a bit confused here.

    Are you saying, without really saying, that you would not agree with Obama "on this" but you would agree with someone else on it?

    If you are - why would you do that? And if you are - who would be an example of someone you could agree with "on this" instead of Obama? And if this line of reasoning is correct - why would you not agree with obama "on this" but you would agree with someone else?

    Lastly - just to pose a simple straight forward question - are you saying that you would welcome a veto proof majority in a bill that would stop the war?

    Parent

    You're looping. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Tue May 08, 2007 at 10:34:47 AM EST
    Time to reboot.

    Parent
    Leading vs following (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:29:30 AM EST
    An Introduction to the Overton Window of Political Possibilities

    Parent
    "anti-war groups"? (none / 0) (#7)
    by amethyst on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:53:39 PM EST
    Which ones are you talking about?

    Your friend Markos is well-known for bashing all anti-war activists -- "nasty hippies", ya know.  So I wonder what exactly you perceive as "anti-war groups".

    According to page 1 article in today's NY Times, (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:57:29 PM EST
    that would be moveon.org and a coalition with good contacts with Congressional staffers.  

    Parent
    Pays to read TalkLeft (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 07, 2007 at 12:04:34 AM EST
    to know which anti-war groups we are referring to.

    Parent
    I asked YOU (none / 0) (#19)
    by amethyst on Mon May 07, 2007 at 12:28:41 AM EST
    YOU can answer.

    Parent
    EDWARDS NEEDS TO RETIRE (none / 0) (#23)
    by JoeCHI on Mon May 07, 2007 at 09:01:09 AM EST
    Edwards is a political weathervane; one that seems to point in only one direction:  his own personal ambition.

    When I think about doing such things (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:06:04 AM EST
    when human lives are involved I call it objective desperation.  I don't get to be a decider though in all of this, so what do they call it when they do it?  Leadership?

    Very disappointing to hear HIllary Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by oculus on Mon May 07, 2007 at 01:10:33 PM EST
    say on NPR this a.m. that, whatever the Democrats decide to do is fine with her.  She could really make a difference on Reid-Feingold.  

    Parent
    No kidding she could (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:23:39 PM EST
    She needs to stop thinking that she is going to tie up the feminist vote out there too.  Just because she is a girl doesn't mean she gets my vote.  I didn't get anywhere as a feminist by sitting on anyone's fence!

    Parent
    In my opinion, she woud be swarmed by women (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:55:51 PM EST
    voters if she back Reid-Feingold.  Who does she think is calling for getting the troops home from Iraq?.

    Today on NPR's Morning Edition, a too-long piece on why African Americans are no longer enlisting in the U.S. military?  Is this really that hard a question?  

    Parent

    Waiting For The Godot Republicans: Boehner Edition | 54 comments (54 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment