The Packbats' Weblog

From Obsidian Wings, who got it from Think Progress:

M. President, my worst fears on this bill have been realized. We have just seen the Republican leadership again resort to technical maneuver to block progress on this crucial amendment.

It would be one thing for Republicans to vote against this bill. If they honestly believe that “stay the course” is the right strategy — they have the right to vote “no.”

But now, Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end.

They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops.

They are denying us an up or down — yes or no — vote on the most important issue our country faces.

I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down.

If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday.

The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.

Given the Republican leadership’s decision to block the amendment, we have no choice but to do everything we can in the coming days to highlight Republican obstruction.

We do this in hopes of ultimately getting a simple up or down vote on this and other important amendments that could change the direction of the war.

All Senators will be welcome to speak their mind. Those of us who are ready to end the war will make our case to the American people. Those who support the status quo are welcome to equal floor time to make their case.

Let the American people hear the arguments. Let them see their elected representatives engaging in a full, open and honest debate.

Let them hear why Republicans are obstructing us on this amendment.

Whenever Republicans are ready to allow a vote on this most crucial legislation, we stand ready to deliver the new course that has been so long in coming.

As hilzoy points out, this is far from the first piece of legislation that has been threatened with filibuster by the current Republican caucus.

The members of this filibuster are not merely ignoring the concerns of U.S. citizens (including a majority of the members of their own party) – they are ignoring reality. There is an old saying a few of you might recall, that a government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. The government we are supporting in Iraq by all indications seems to lack just that consent. The United States should not prop it up any longer.

I just don't know what to say.

I want to be suspicious of these articles, I really do. The VP has had such a complete reputation for being an operator, that it's creepy to see that rumor-mongering collaborated in an actual newspaper. They talk about how Cheney doesn't consider himself a 'power behind the throne', merely a 'detail person' as opposed to the President's generalities. I'm willing to believe the latter comparison – however smart Bush may be, he doesn't seem to be paying much attention to his job – but when the article goes on to describe what the VP accomplishes ... well, as a wise person once said, I deeply resent the way this administration makes me feel like a nutbar conspiracy theorist.

As I said, I don't want to believe the articles. But there's no reason to think that the Washington Post would suddenly start catering to the delusions of the fraction of its readers who fear this administration. And the writers interviewed dozens (hundreds?) of people. So I'm faced with the thought that perhaps most of the evil associated with the past six years is specifically Mr. Cheney's responsibility.

(I read them in the paper, so I can't guarantee the Web version. Also, I read them when they were printed, so I can't guarantee my memory. Still.)

The author of The Satanic Verses has been knighted, and swaths of the Muslim world are angry.

I have basically two things to say about this.

First, yeah, I get that they're angry. I'd be angry too if a celebrity I reviled were given public honors. I might even write a blog post railing against the authorities responsible. When a society celebrates someone, it states that their public face represents ideals of that society, and I wouldn't want those ideals endorsed.

(For the record, I don't care about Salman Rushdie – haven't even read the book. It's just a hypothetical.)

The second thing is a reply to this:

"If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Muhammad, his act is justified," the minister said, according to Reuters news agency.

I don't care if the guy took it back. That ideal, that acts of terrorism can ever be justified, is one I never want to see again.


(How's that for a tepid start? I promise, I'll try to be more interesting in the future.)

(Wow, Everything2's link-happy attitude is affecting me everywhere.)