Iraqi Nationalism, Step 1

There is hope on the horizon!

And I can't help but notice that this must be an internal response to the realization that the US is not just going to bug out - at least not until after a left-leaning Democrat wins the Presidency. [And given the field of candidates, that may not be the next time around.]

It's a great fantasy to think that people of different backgrounds, experience, ideas and ideals can all live together in peace inside the borders of a self-proclaimed nation. But it's still a fantasy.

Even in the US, and all the other stable governments, there is a war raging. Subtle though the slings and arrows may be, they are there, and they represent our right to think for ourselves. That's not a right that we need a constitution for - it is a biological imperative.

I was shocked by yesterday's anti-Islamism manifesto. It reeked of blindness and ignorance and self-absorption.
[Salman, I get the point, but I'm surprised at you! Buying in so completely to the Western machine? It doesn't seem possible!]

Why? Because domination, censorship and slavery exist in the West, too. We've just learned to hide it better.

[If you disagree, ask a black man who's in charge in this country. Ask a racist bigot, an aggressive woman, and an anti-corporate radical how they feel about freedom of expression in this country. And ask a 22 year old, ESL high school drop-out how they feel about opportunity in this country. For that matter, ask a 35 year old, college-educated cubicle-surfer - you'd probably get the same answer.]

The drug is Power. The dealer is Control. The payment is your Truth. And the whole world is hooked.

From The New York Times:

July 19, 2007
Stymied by G.O.P., Democrats Stop Debate on Iraq
By CARL HULSE and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON, July 18 — After Senate Republicans yet again thwarted a proposal to withdraw American troops from Iraq, Democratic leaders on Wednesday abruptly halted consideration of a major Pentagon policy measure, heading off the introduction of competing Iraq plans.

The Democrats’ decision, coming after an all-night session and after more than a week of intensive debate in the Senate, meant that President Bush had essentially won the added time he said he needed to demonstrate that his troop buildup was succeeding.

The move appeared to postpone the next Senate showdown over the war until September, despite a White House report that claimed no more than mixed progress in Iraq. It also allowed Democratic leaders to avoid votes on alternative initiatives that Republicans had sought to portray as evidence that they were seeking a change in Iraq as well.

Though four Republicans joined 47 Democrats and an independent in backing the beginning of a troop withdrawal in 120 days, Mr. Bush was able to hold on to nearly all Republicans in the Senate despite public expressions of dissatisfaction with the war by several.

The Democrats fell eight votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. They said the outcome showed Republicans were preventing a majority of the Senate from trying to force Mr. Bush to begin winding down combat operations in Iraq, and pledged to use an August recess to keep pressing Republicans.

“Our colleagues in the Senate are going to have a chance to go home, explain their votes and vote again,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Senate Democrat. “And eventually, I am confident, they’ll join us in changing the direction in Iraq.”

The Democratic move angered Republicans who had hoped to get a chance to push their approaches.

“If the American people suspect for a minute that any of us in the Senate are using those tactics as political issues, more than an effort to develop a consensus, I think there will be a heavy political price to pay,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.
He said he was disappointed the Senate would not get to vote on his proposal to put recommendations from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group into law.

The final 52-to-47 vote came after a debate that unfolded around the clock, starting at 11:25 a.m. on Tuesday and concluding shortly after 11 a.m. on Wednesday, with more than half of the membership of the Senate delivering speeches. Lawmakers were required to vote formally from their desks rather than rushing in to cast votes as usual. Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is majority leader, cast his vote with Republicans for procedural reasons so he could revive the issue later.

Mr. Reid then unexpectedly announced he was ending consideration of the annual Pentagon policy measure. “We will come back to this bill as soon as it is clear we can make real progress,” Mr. Reid said.

Though he would not specify when that might be, other Senate officials said they were confident that the fight over Iraq would not be taken up again until September, about the same time a full administration report is due on the course of the war.

Republicans accused Democrats of wasting time on a fruitless talkathon. “Nothing we have done for the last 24 hours will have changed any fact on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important for the security of this country,” said Senator John McCain of Arizona, senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee.

Democrats hope the intervening weeks and public unrest with the war will cause more Republicans to break with the president. Almost immediately, activist groups announced plans to conduct antiwar events in the states of key Republican senators. The pause will also allow Republicans to charge that Democrats are stalling a major Pentagon measure, including a military pay raise, to make political points.

In the House, Democrats said Wednesday that they were still considering pressing Iraq-related votes before the August recess.

The latest New York Times/CBS News poll showed that 6 in 10 Americans say Congress should allow financing for the war in Iraq, but only on the condition that the United States sets a timetable for the withdrawal of troops. Still, 28 percent say Congress should allow all financing for the war without conditions. Just 8 percent of those polled said Congress should block all money for the war.

The poll, conducted July 9 to 17 with 1,554 adults nationwide, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

One Republican who joined the Democrats in voting to stop the debate, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, said she did so because she objected to the filibuster, not as a sign that she supported setting a deadline for troop withdrawal. Even as Mr. Reid praised her, Ms. Collins criticized him for shelving the Iraq debate.

“He chastises Republicans for not allowing a vote,” Ms. Collins told reporters. “But he’s the one who is pulling the bill from the floor and thus precluding further consideration of all of the Iraq amendments that we have pending.”

While it came as a surprise, Mr. Reid’s decision to suspend the Iraq debate was reached Monday after a meeting with Democratic leaders, party strategists said. If Mr. Reid allowed senators to vote on anything short of a firm withdrawal deadline, strategists said, they feared it could give Republicans political cover.

Tempers were frayed as the marathon debate came to a close. Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, called the proceedings an indignity. The overnight session turned parts of the Capitol into a temporary dormitory. Among the Democrats who caught a few winks on cots in a room near the Senate chamber were two freshmen, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who do not have the seniority for private Capitol offices.

A steady stream of Democrats and Republicans stayed on the Senate floor from before sunset on Tuesday to beyond sunrise on Wednesday, forming a nearly unbroken rhetorical chain. More than 40 senators did not come to the floor to speak, including several Republicans who had voiced concern about Iraq strategy.

Presidential candidates were not afforded special treatment. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, hunkered down in her windowless hideaway office waiting for her 4:15 a.m. window to speak.

Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, had hoped to address the Senate for 30 minutes beginning at 6 a.m. But when colleagues with more seniority exceeded their allotted time, he had to squeeze his thoughts into a one-minute speech and submit the rest into the written Congressional record.

David M. Herszenhorn contributed reporting.