Prosecute the torture.

May 29, 2007

Congressman Altmire on Night Talk

Congressman Jason Altmire (PA-4) was on John McIntire's old show this evening talking about, among other things, immigration reform and the Iraq war funding bill.

Altmire and Mike Pintek also sparred on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Pintek was trotting out the tired old "Pelosi didn't meet with General Petreus" story). To his credit, Altmire got the better of Pintek on that.

On the other hand, the Congressman had to defend his recent vote in favor of funding the Iraq war without any sort of timetables to two callers (I was one of them - someone named "Cassidy" was the other). His main argument rested on the idea that he'd always promised never to vote to defund the troops.

I called in to remind both of them that according to a recent poll, a large majority of Americans actually WANTED funding with timetables, that the Democrats were elected in November with a clear message of ending the war, and to set up some accountability for a President who hasn't had any in 6 years. It's very sad that the Democrats in Congress couldn't deliver a bill that more clearly reflected the will of the People.

And here's an interesting tidbit: Pintek signals the control room to cut off a caller (at least he did it tonight) by tapping his pen on the table. I think poker players would call it a "tell."

11 comments:

Whigsboy said...

Darn, wish I would have known. I actually could have listened. I'm so disappointed by Altmire. And his excuse is crap. Another nonleader.

All Democrats in Congress, the only two things you need to do to ensure a successful legislative career and best represent your constituents and the United States of America: On the big votes, watch what Russ Feingold does and do the same. You may now return to your regular schedule of being scared of Republicans and trying to remember you're in the majority.

Anonymous said...

Is it possible that Altmire IS representing his district. Isn't it a conservative district? He won a race nobody thought he could win against an unbeatable rising star Republican. Maybe he knows what he is doing.

Anonymous said...

Yes, that IS a conservative, pro-life (unlike Feingold!) Reagan Democrat district...

"Fair and Balanced" Dave said...

His main argument rested on the idea that he'd always promised never to vote to defund the troops.

1. It was Bush's veto, not Congress that caused the delay in the Iraq funding bill.

2. If Bush was truly concerned with "funding the troops" he'd actually include Iraq funding in the Defense appropriations of the Budget rather than these bullshit supplemental bills.

3. Defunding the Iraq occupation will NOT leave the troops high and dry. This is a myth perpertrated by the right-wing spin machine and repeated by the brainless MSM. Glenn Greenwald does an excellent job debunking this myth and Glenn's article should be required reading for every Dem who lacked the spine to stand up to President 28% Approval Rating.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Whigsboy: Are you also disappointed with a dog when it barks? Does the moon disappoint you as it waxes and wanes? Do you wish a brick would rise when you drop it?

Whigsboy said...

Schmuck - yes, some times I do.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Good luck with all of that, Whigs.

Anonymous said...

I think Altmire is being careful. Call it cowardly, if you will, but I think, for now, it's smart. The Dems, across the board, are trying to find the appropriate exit strategy from Iraq, one that does not include a total meltdown in the Middle East...something they as a party would be saddled with for years afterward.

In other words, they are trying to win both the battle AND the war, in such a way that they look like heroes and patriots...not like losers. And I'm not talking about the war in Iraq, I'm talking about the political war.

And note this; while polls indicate the majority of Americans want to "get out now," we are a rather fickle people. If "getting out now" were to lead to a destabilized Middle East and even high gas prices, they might quickly ask; "Why didn't we back out of Iraq more carefully?"

Piltdown Man

Schmuck Shitrock said...

These jellyfish were not sent to Congress to be careful, or smart, or to look like winners. They were sent there to end the war. Now they refuse to do what they said they would do.

I don't call it cowardice; I call it malfeasance. I stop short of calling it treason, but I'm willing to be convinced.

Anonymous said...

So. They cut off funding. The war devolves into utter chaos. The GOP says "I told you so." The American lumpenstupids say, "Gee, I see what Bush means!" They elect McCain or other other wingnut, kick the Dems out of Congress and we are PRESTO, back to square one.

Yes, the war is a huge issue. But it ain't the only issue and we need to live to fight ahother day.

Pilt

Schmuck Shitrock said...

The war devolves into utter chaos.

Be sure to let us know when this happens. I'm pretty sure I won't be able to tell the difference from the current situation.