I applaud the House Democrats withholding over three billion dollars in developmental aid, although it also sounds like there are plenty of loopholes. Now, I'd like to see the House withhold military spending. Yes, yes...there were many cases of corruption and fraud with the developmental money. But are you telling me there weren't with the military cash? Or the Chinese-financed credit card payment we just made to whatever Blackwater now calls itself?
It is nice to see the Dems fight for anything! But wake me when they fight the real fight - getting our young men and women the fuck out of an unwinable and ill-concieved war, for no good purpose, and no benefit to our national security (that I can see). NUT UP (so to speak, Speaker Pelosi), and deny the next emergency spending bill to fund Afghanidisaster.
But, now that General Betray-us (I have not forgotten, Move On) is back on the stage, I predict we will be told that the July 2011 draw-down of troops will be an "outdated assessment of conditions on the ground." Now that he's had a chance to check shit out, he will realize that there is no way the President can "responsibly" leave next year. This will start in about a week, if not sooner. The smack-dealing scumbag president of Afghanistan will continue to take our money, give it to our supposed enemies, himself, his brother and his associates; and we will still lose this war and be that much poorer. And all the while Obama is trying to steal our social security. Fuck!
Maybe, just maybe, Pelosi and the House Dems have cracked the armor. Naomi Klein said in her book The Shock Doctrine that the main stream media voices of dissent are quelled to ease the funding and prosecution of the war. You can hear them now: "...can't leave a haven for terrorists," "...give our troops a chance to finish the job," and so on. But if you're the press, you pretty much have to cover the Speaker of the House cutting funds to the country's major war effort. Whether or not pundits agree or disagree with Pelosi's recent action, the question has been raised: is Afghanistan too corrupt to continue funding as we are currently?
And this can lead to a host of other questions that, hopefully, a Democratic (and maybe even a Republican or two) member of Congress can raise publicly. And not just Allen Grayson - "mainstream" (read timid, teat-suckling, corporate-ass-licking) Democrats who read the political writing on the wall, and may begin to raise questions too. Hope springs eternal.
I see two things that have the obvious potential to make Obama a one-term president. The first is another financial meltdown before 2012, as he prepares to hang the "mission accomplished" banner with the laughable "reform" bill coming out of conference committee. The other is the war in Afghanistan. The reports of the corruption made House Democrats feel they couldn't hold 100% with the President's Afghanistan policy in an election year. Further bad news, which is inevitable, could peel more Democrats away, and increase the pressure to cut war funding. General Petraeus, enjoy becoming General Westmoreland. Obama, enjoy becoming Richard Nixon, maybe without the Watergate thing.
By the way, that asshole McCristol (SP) announced his retirement today. Republican presidential candidate in 2010?