The Democratic Response to The War Funding Veto We'd Like to See . . .

To nobody’s surprise, Dubya vetoed the emergency war funding bill today. And immediately afterward, the Democrats turned to Jell-O. I like Jell-O once in a while, but I’m sick and freakin’ tired of having Jell-O in Washington.

If Democrats were serious about the funding bill they just passed, here’s the text of the press conference that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would have held a few minutes after the Bush veto:

Reid: Thank you for coming. Today, I am announcing a major new initiative aimed at combating the threat of global warming. In your press packets, you’ll find details of an ambitious program aimed at reversing the ever-increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Reporter: Senator Reid, what are the details of your next bill to fund the Iraq war?

Reid: Next bill? Gee, you reporters need to pay closer attention. We passed that bill earlier today.

Reporter: But the president vetoed it.

Reid: Yes, I heard that. Well, I guess the president knows what he’s doing. Now, back to global warming . . .

Reporter: But what about funding the troops?

Reid: What about it?

Reporter: Isn’t the military going to run out of money in the middle of a war?

Reid: It certainly appears so.

Reporter: How can you let that happen?

Reid: It works like this. Congress passed a bill to fully fund the war for about six additional months. The president vetoed it. We will attempt to override his veto, but I don’t think we have the votes to do so. Therefore, the bill will die and the funding won’t be allocated. Now, about global warming . . .

Reporter: But, where will the military get the money to continue the war?

Reid: Well, it would have gotten the money from the emergency supplemental spending bill we passed earlier today. Since the president vetoed it, he must have something else in mind. I don’t mean to speak for the man. You should probably ask him.

Reporter: Isn’t that irresponsible? Allowing the troops to run out of money?

Reid: Yes, we in Congress think it is. That’s why we passed the bill. We didn’t want the troops to run out of money.

Reporter: But you knew that Bush would veto this legislation before you passed it.

Reid: Yep, and as you just indicated, we thought that would be irresponsible of him. Now that funding for the Iraq war looks like it will run out, it appears that we were right.

Reporter: Won’t there be another attempt in Congress to fund the war?

Reid: Are you kidding? Just getting the first bill through Congress was like pulling teeth. That’s why I was so glad that the bill passed. It’s nice to have our part out of the way. We’ve got a lot of issues to grapple with during this session, so it’s best if we move immediately to the global warming initiative.

Reporter: But Bush vetoed it.

Reid: Don’t be silly. I just proposed it five minutes ago.

Reporter: The war funding bill, I mean.

Reid: Are you still talking about that? OK, I’ll agree with you a second time. He certainly did.

Reporter: So, how is the military going to fund the war?

Reid: Beats me. I’m sure Bush has a plan, though. Surely he’s not stupid enough to veto a war funding bill in the middle of a war without having alternate funding in place.

Reporter: Bush said that the funding bill was a bill for failure.

Reid: I think he was a bit confused. The bill that authorized Bush to invade Iraq was the bill for failure. This was a bill for ending the failure.

Reporter: Bush also said that it would be irresponsible to signal to the enemy when we are leaving. All they would have to do would be to lay low and wait for us to leave. Then they could take over.

Reid: Shhh! Don’t tell the enemy that all they have to do is stop killing our troops and we’ll leave! You don’t want us to lose the war, do you?

Reporter: Well, no, but . . .

Reid: I’m already afraid that the president offered a roadmap for victory to the enemy in Iraq with that slip of the tongue this afternoon.

Reporter: You’re not seriously suggesting that the enemy can win by waiting for us to leave, are you?

Reid: No, Bush was seriously suggesting that. His version only seemed to work based on the presence of a date certain for withdrawal, but the enemy certainly doesn't need a US withdrawal date to implement his brilliant strategy. If Bush is correct, the enemy can just stop fighting, lay low, marshal its forces, and when we think we’ve won the war and come home, they can make their move!

Reporter: That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

Reid: I agree with you. But it’s not my plan. It’s Bush’s plan for an al Qaeda victory in Iraq. And the only way to defeat this diabolical plan is to never leave Iraq. After a decade or two of peaceful occupation, the enemy would surely tire of our soldiers building homes in their country and driving up the price of real estate, so they’d eventually have no choice but to start killing us again. That’s how we’d win.

Reporter: How? By having our troops die?

Reid: Again, it’s not my plan. My plan was to bring the troops home. Bush’s plan is to keep the troops in Iraq indefinitely, and have them continue to die. When our troops die, America wins. When our troops come home, America loses. But for a fuller explanation, you’ll have to ask the architect of this strategy. He’s down Pennsylvania Avenue drawing up plans for losing the next war.

Reporter: Bush also said that we can’t have politicians in Washington 6,000 miles away from Baghdad telling the generals on the ground how to run the war.

Reid: I think I see his problem. As commander-in-chief, Bush is a politician in Washington 6,000 miles from Baghdad, and he is required by the Constitution to tell the generals how to run the war. Maybe he doesn’t realize that he’s in charge of this mess. Boy, will he be embarrassed when he finds out that this is all his fault! What I wouldn’t give to see the look on his face when Rove tells him!

Reporter: Bush said your bill would turn Iraq into a “caldron of chaos.”

Reid: He’s mistaken. Our bill didn’t contain any mention of a caldron, which is all that’s currently missing from that recipe. Frankly, I don’t think that chaos with no caldron is any better, which is what we have now.

Reporter: Bush also said that Democrats were making a political statement by passing this bill.

Reid: No, we were attempting to end American involvement in an orderly way. Bush was making a political statement by vetoing the bill. That statement is pretty clear. If he can’t have a war that lasts forever, he won’t have a war at all. I disagree, but, hey, he’s the president.

Reporter: But, how are the Iraq . . .

Reid: OK, that’s enough. I’ve patiently answered your questions on Iraq for ten minutes. Well, folks, I’m finished with the questions. America has been at war for over four years. Thousands of Americans are dead, tens of thousands are wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, and millions are displaced. And in all that time, not once has Bush offered an explanation for the invasion that wasn’t completely refuted by the facts. So to stop this senseless waste of life, my colleagues in Congress and I offered a bill to end the war in an organized manner. Bush vetoed it, so he apparently prefers his wars to end in a disorganized manner. Maybe he wants the war’s end to match the beginning and the middle. But it was his decision to invade, it was his decision to veto the funding bill, and it will be his decision to figure out how the hell to get 160,000 troops home with no money. If you have any more questions about the war, I suggest you ask the president. And, so help me, if the first question you ask him is anything other than, “So, what are we REALLY doing in Iraq?” I’m going to rip your larynx out with my bare hands.

Now, if you’ll turn to page one of your global warming initiative press kits . . .

There you have it. The press conference that Reid would have held if he and the Democrats were serious about the war funding bill Congress just passed. But instead of this, I’m sure we’ll get lots of hand-wringing and self-loathing from our quivering enablers on Capitol Hill. It’s our fault that Bush vetoed the funding bill! The war has to go on forever or we hate the troops! Quick, give Bush everything he wants! And apologize to America for trying to do the right thing in the last bill! FOR GOD'S SAKE, ORDER UP A FEW THOUSAND MORE COFFIN-SHAPED FLAGS BEFORE SOMEBODY CALLS US UNPATRIOTIC!!!!!!!!!

I’m going back to sleep now. Somebody wake me if Capitol Hill security finds a pair of testicles hidden in some congressman’s underwear.

5/02/07

Unless otherwise noted, all original content and headlines are © The Angry Liberal . Contact The Angry Liberal for reprint rights.