Congressional motives: let’s not forget revenge—on Bush
I’ve written a great many posts on the tireless efforts of Democrats in this Congress to stop the Iraq War in the face of the fact that they simply don’t have the votes necessary to override Bush’s vetoes. I’ve described their exertions variously as politically motivated wishful thinking, as theater, and as an overcalculation of their own strength, among other things.
And those efforts are continuing, despite strong evidence of improvement in Iraq and increased optimism about the prospects there for the future.
Why is Congress so stuck on pursuing a strategy that seems likely to come back and bite them? I wrote here that I see it as a combination of antiwar sentiment, placating the Democratic base in order to encourage all-important campaign contributions, and a frantic race against the clock inspired by the need to wipe the slate clean of the messiness of Iraq before what they assume will be a 2008 Democratic victory.
But I forgot another important reason. Perhaps, for some, it’s even the most important one: Bush-hatred, and the related desire to thwart him.
Am I being unfair? I don’t think so. By their rhetoric ye shall know them, and from the words uttered by some Democratic Congressional leaders and their spokespeople lately I cannot help but suspect that this particular rage against a man they have come to detest is one of the factors clouding their vision.
For example, here’s an AP story from yesterday about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s latest campaign to cut funds for the war. The plan is to appropriate the needed fifty billion dollars but tie it in to a promise to start withdrawal now and complete it by December of 2008 (no coincidence, in my opinion, that this would be right before the new Congress and new President will take office).
If Bush vetoes the bill—as will undoubtedly occur if it’s passed—then there will be no more funds appropriated. The military will then be forced to borrow funds from other areas in order to continue the campaign, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and eventually running out, according to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, who said that if there were no further appropriations:
…the Army was on track to run out of money by February.
England also said that without more money the military would eventually have to close facilities, layoff civilian workers and defer contracts. Also, the budget delay could disrupt training efforts of Iraqi security forces and efforts to protect troops against roadside bombs, he said.
How do the Democrats plan to circumvent this scenario? By denying it:
“We will and we must pay for whatever cost to protect the American people,” said House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. “But tragically, unfortunately, incredibly, the war is not making us safer.”
I hadn’t noticed the enormous increase in terrorist attacks here at home since the Iraq War began [/irony]; no doubt, Hoyer has. And I suppose the idea advanced by Gordon England that the money is needed for the defense of our military against roadside bombs doesn’t hold water with Hoyer either; after all, if the troops are withdrawn, they will be (at least temporarily) safe. The notion that we would be sabotaging the mission itself by withdrawing funds, pulling the plug just when we are quite possibly on our way to achieving some of our goals there (both for fighting terrorism and for establishing a stable and functioning democracy and ally in Iraq), and therefore making the many post-invasion deaths in Iraq—both of US military and of the Iraqi people—meaningless and profoundly wasteful, doesn’t seem to have occurred to Hoyer either.
But back to that motivation I mentioned earlier: revenge against Bush. I wrote “by their rhetoric you shall know them,” and in this regard, Reid’s statement is the most telling of all [emphasis mine]:
If Bush vetoes the bill, “then the president won’t get his $50 billion,” Reid, D-Nev., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.
Reid may see this as tough talk, but it’s also interesting talk in that it demonstrates that he conceptualizes this money as money for domestic enemy No. 1, Bush. It’s not the troops’ money, nor the Defense Department’s money. No, it’s the money of the hated nemesis, Bush.
You might ask what’s the big deal about the troop withdrawal timetable suggested by Congress in this new bill. After all, some of the surge troops are about to come home anyway, and if things continue to improve there, they will be followed by more. So this bill would really only serve to rubber stamp what’s already happening.
The big deal is this: Congress would be setting a terrible precedent here in making troop movements a political rather than a strategic military decision. As President Bush rightly says, “troop levels should be based on conditions on the ground and not predetermined by Congress.” That word “predetermined” is a major part of the problem. The military must be flexible and responsive, not tied into a pre-existing schedule, one that meets the elective needs of members of Congress.
If Democratic members of Congress really are serious about all of this, they should just exercise their Constitutional powers and defund the war outright; failing to vote for funds is a veto-proof action, after all, since Bush can hardly veto a bill that doesn’t exist. But they are afraid this would leave them vulnerable to charges of abandoning the troops.
It certainly would. But what most Democrats don’t seem to understand is how bad they are looking already. They are pleasing no one. Naturally, Republicans are not happy with them. But their own base is angry as well because it wants them to quit pussyfooting around and defund the war outright. And anything that smacks of pulling the plug on the troops would be unpopular with the vast middle of the country, who would see it as hurting those who are presently engaged in Iraq.
How do Reid, Pelosi, and Hoyer actually think they have a chance of winning this particular political skirmish? Do they imagine that Bush will blink if confronted with the mere possibility of a defunding, and that he therefore will sign this bill into law rather than risk it, with the result that they will never have to follow through on their threat? If so, they have sadly misjudged their political adversary.
It seems to be an occupational hazard among many members of Congress—as well as the press that covers them—to have the sense that internal politics matters more than other events in the world. When so much of one’s life is based on winning a struggle between the two parties, that conflict tends to take on enormous significance. It’s a sort of hubris, expressed quite well in this article by the two ex-Washington Post journalists who founded The Politico:
….it turns out that Washington matters less than many Democrats and even many journalists supposed in determining political momentum in the Iraq debate.
Events on the ground—including regular, if still fragmentary, evidence that security is improving somewhat in the wake of the military’s “surge” policy—matter more.
My, my, my, what a revolutionary thought! But it’s one that seems opaque to many in Congress, so filled are they with their own concerns, which mostly seem to revolve around re-election.
The Politico article contains other sobering insights about the way so many Congressional Democrats are thinking these days about the war. Except for mavericks such as Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who chose to believe the evidence of his eyes rather than stick to his previous antiwar rhetoric after he observed the surge working, most of them seem to exhibit a remarkable lack of what used to known as statesmanship.
Here’s more from that Politico piece. The current state of affairs re Iraq has prompted:
…a what-if debate among Democratic lawmakers.
Some of them have told [the authors] privately that their leaders botched a chance earlier this year—before the surge appeared to have some success—to work with Republicans on modest restrictions on the war.
So what these Democratic leaders are saying is that they wish they’d restricted the war before it had time to work.
This somewhat extraordinary thought seems almost obscene (or at least absurd) to me. But it suggests an answer to a question I posed here, about whether those Democrats who were initially against the surge would ever be likely to say they might have been wrong about it if things end up going well in Iraq. My guess is that, for at least some of them, the more successful the surge policy becomes the more they will be inclined to regret not having nipped it in the bud.
For more evidence of Reid’s lack of perspective, and his inability to understand where he and his supporters might have gone wrong, just listen to his spokesman Jim Manley, who says “the only strategic miscalculation Democrats might have made was ‘failing to grasp how much Republicans were willing to stick with the president.'”
There it is again, you see: the whole thing is not about events on the ground but rather Party loyalty—and, of course, President Bush. Republicans didn’t evaluate the situation in Iraq and decide what they thought best for the US at the point, the war on Islamic totalitarianism, or the people of Iraq. No. They stuck with the President, who is after all what this war is really about.
If there’s any doubt left about another one of the overriding concerns of Harry Reid et al, Manley dispels them in the following succinct statement expressing the deep desire of Democrats to avoid finding themselves in what I’ve called “the Nixon position:”
The Republicans own this thing, lock, stock and barrel.
And the Democrats want to keep it that way. But they are ignoring the fact that the Democrats own something, as well: their own efforts regarding Iraq since gaining the House majority in the 2006 election. And they might find that those actions—and inactions—of theirs not only look bad at the moment to both sides (albeit for different reasons); they also might end up looking very bad if things were to end up looking better and better in Iraq.
A Tree Is Known by Its Fruit
Lk. 6.43, 44
15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mt. 3.10 · Lk. 3.9
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Mt. 12.33
The Puritans — in the pejorative sense liberals have used that word — are still with us, and oddly enough, most prominently among the most liberal, the “progressives” such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
First I found them merely moralistically censorious, but with a hint of threat in their stare. Now their hate is out in the open, most prominently as Bush-bashing, but also as a generalized, bitter antagonism toward anyone that questions their authority, much less, blocks it.
What drives such anger in individuals who profess such deep care for the people, and are so successful, so advantaged by common standards?
I have always found it incredible that otherwise balanced and intelligent people believe that it is Bush that is exploiting 9/11 and Iraq for political gain – while putting the military, the US economy, and significant amounts of international political goodwill in the balance – but the Democrats are simply resisting incipient fascism – by passing bills that have no chance of passing, and wailing at every opportunity like a bunch of mullahs… and approving spending bills, eventually. Seems like it would have been smarter to simply declare solidarity with the war(s), and thereby neutralize its political character completely.
This may sound backwards, but I think today’s progressives are the direct descendants of the seventeenth century’s Puritans. Same blame, same guilt, same whining about how imperfect everyone is, same undermining of of established religion and customs. Somewhere along the line they tossed the Bible, but I think the motivations have remained constant. Don’t ask me what those motivations are. Some people are just that way.
Too bad Bush can’t start closing military bases in these congress-creatures’ home districts and use the money for war funds. Might get their attention.
I guess it helps to think that Reid, Pelosi et al are acting out of hatred of Bush (BRD), since I had thought they were simply anti-American. I did wonder if any government agencies check to see if they receive contributions from foreign interests.
The Democrats are traitors. They have committed, and continue to commit, the crime of treason. They should be arrested, tried, and spend the rest of their lives in jail.
I’m serious. Consider the Constitutional definition: levying war against the United States, adhering to their enemies, or giving aid and comfort to those enemies. Defunding a war to strangle military operations against our enemies sure sounds like “aid and comfort” to me. Arrest the bastards. Show them that their idiotic, selfish, destructive actions have real consequences.
Arresting people like Tookie is just putting the problem on hold. Death is the ultimate solution.
Inspired by Vanderluen, I’m going Biblical in my consideration of Dem Congresspersons! From the Sermon on the Mount, Matt 6:22-23
“The lamp of the body is the eye;
if therefore your eye is clear,
your whole body will be full of light.
But if your eye is bad,
your whole body will be full of darkness.
If therefore the light that is in you is darkness,
how great is the darkness!”
(New American Standard Bible)
These are not the finest days for the Democratic Party. Their eyes are clouded.
I dont get this either, unless its within the context of pure fear of their more “progressive” constituents and the sanity over-riding desire to appease them. Could BDS be a real factor? Its hard for me to believe they could all suffer from such blind hatred that it would lead them to screw their country at this moment. Im not saying that hatred isnt there, but this is an awful lot like the story about the scorpion and the frog, where the scorpion stings the frog in mid-stream anyway…just out of nature. I just dont get it.
The dems are nigh unhinged that W was smarter than they. Everything he’s accomplished has been over their dead bodies. They will never forgive him.
W will be treated very graciously by history. His detractors will become footnotes.
This is a very long post that essentially says “The Dems have BDS.”
Could BDS be a real factor?
The innocence with which the question is asked! How charming.
Show them that their idiotic, selfish, destructive actions have real consequences.
As opposed to…oh, the war in Iraq? How has that lesson gone over for the other side? Oh, not so much.
Seems like it would have been smarter to simply declare solidarity with the war(s), and thereby neutralize its political character completely.
Yes, when a majority of American favor withdrawal from Iraq, the only truly sensible political strategy is to embrace the war in Iraq.
Too bad Bush can’t start closing military bases in these congress-creatures’ home districts and use the money for war funds. Might get their attention.
Yes, it is well and truly a shame that Bush cannot start closing military bases to bolster the war. Oh, wait.
W will be treated very graciously by history. His detractors will become footnotes.
I’m taking note of your blog, so that we may revisit this topic in 20 years or so.
Excellent post. I completely agree. BDS is so rampant and common that the Dems no longer have the interests of the country at heart, only the next election. Bush continues to unhinge them.
Echoing you, Neo, one reads in the New Testament:
The good man from the good treasure of his heart brings forth the good, the evil (man) from his evil (heart) brings forth evil.*
Yours was a great analysis of these pathetic “leaders.”
Jamie Irons
*This PC, unlike my MacBook Pro at home, just can’t seem to handle ancient Greek, so here is an ugly transliteration of the Koine of the New Testament:Ho agathos anthropos ek tou agathou thesaurou tes kardias prospherei to agathon, ho poneros ek tou ponerou to poneron…
BDS in both its American and European metatases reflects the awful realization that leftists don’t matter – their day has come and gone. They can huff and puff, but anyone who doesn’t worry about popularity can do as he pleases. Leftists are left only a role as obstructionists, not as initiators.
Since their high water mark in 1968, leftism generally has subsided into a pimple on the butt of humanity, one that now can only gain air time by riding on the coattails of Islamofascism. Socalism has been totally discredited, leaving many erstwhile socialists to plaintively (if only implicitly, and/or privately) bleat “Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.” Others take refuge in sophistry, saying socialism hasn’t ever been tried properly. But in their (blackened?) hearts, they know they’re selling the political/economic equivalent of eight-track tapes.
The President’s brushing away their objections therefore infuriates them by making their impotence painfully apparent. The same phenomenon also operates on many Europeans, who are not only laughed off by Bush but by Iran, too. Somehow the Europeans’ sternly worded letters just aren’t making it.
Many aging Aquarians are only now realizing that they’ve wasted their lives on an intellectually bankrupt form of protracted adolescence, and resent being reminded of it. Feminists from the 70s who eschewed motherhood for career often exhibit exactly the same phenomenon. Neither likes to face reality; they missed the boat.
I only met one democrat congressman. If I meet another one, I won’t shake his or her hand, in case my friends would see.
Problem is two fold. One side is that what the dems profess–their ostensible motivation–is thwarted by the actions they pursue. From which one deduces they are lying about their motivation.
The second side is that what they are trying to do is so obviously wrong that one despairs. Even their complaints–which X could no doubt lay out for us in tedious detail–are false. As we have seen when X has gone all tedious on us.
I do know some sufferers from BDS and they really have put hatred of Bush ahead of rational thinking. One told me, years ago, that it was Bush’s fault that unemployment benefits didn’t get extended. I pointed out that was by Senate vote. Her response was, “I still think it’s Bush’s fault.” I later mentioned the excessive interest in high school football in Texas. “Yeah. Bush.” was her answer. She is a positive nutcase on the subject and, if necessary, 2+2 will equal a purple giraffe to support her rationales. She is so whacked out that she has no idea of how effing stupid she looks.
And there is little to choose between her, some of the professoriate, and the dem party.
I recall the Baptists claiming JFK would get his orders in the confessional. I go that far back. But I’ve never seen anything like this.
I recall a professor telling us that LBJ was refurbishing camps for intellectuals, smiling all the while. He was, he thought, going to be one of the chosen, but he was smiling. He didn’t have his lunch running down his pants. Which is to say, he didn’t really, in his heart of hearts, believe it.
These clowns today, prating of shredded constitutions, actually believe it.
Never seen anything like it.
I concur, sadly.
Also, a nitpick:
“…So what these Democratic leaders (one of whom appears from the article to have been House Minority Whip Roy Blunt)…”
Blount is a (R) from MO.
BDS is only a symptom of a much more wide and profound psychological malfunction. Such irrational fear and hatred are typical of a dying ideology in unresolvable conflict with reality. The same is true for Islamism, an obsolent, discredited utopia seeng in all manifestations of modernity a mortal danger to its core beliefs and as result turning violent. Puritans are apt analogy: also utopian ideology of social perfection turning to witch-hunting. Demonization of opponents is natural for those who feels doomed by history.
X:
Let me go over this in words of one syllable, so to speak. Whatever your opinion of the war in Iraq — and, before you tell us, we know your opinion of it — there is one fact I think you can agree with the rest of us on. Iraq is another country. It is not the United States. Right?
Therefore, making war on Saddam Hussein, and then keeping troops there to make war on Al-Qaeda, cannot be treason against the United States. Unless you think that Saddam or Al-Qaeda are actually Americans, which I don’t think even Dennis Kucinich would admit.
Still with me?
However, taking steps which are openly described as being intended to bring about defeat for U.S. troops in Iraq fits the definition of treason. It might have been defensible when things were going badly and it looked as if we might not be able to prevail. But things are going well now. To pull funding for the war and thus abandon the Iraqi people to terrorist atrocities and Iranian imperialism isn’t just treason against the United States, it is a crime against basic human decency.
What a fascinating situation. Many of the comments here show signs of Clinton hatred (Bill? Hillary? Who cares?) metastasized to the point that there are suggestions Democrats (all of them?) may be foreign agents and are definitely traitors who should either be arrested or killed. Would this be an example of Sergey’s “Demonization of opponents is natural for those who feels (sic) doomed by history.” The biggest crime of Democrats in Congress? Listening to the American people who overwhelmingly believe we should be out of Iraq. Hmmm, does that make roughly 70% of the American people traitors?
And the other big fault of Democrats in Congress is … they’re being politicians. Of course, there are no politicians on the right. On the right there are only pure patriots who would never, ever, make speeches or pass legislation they know will be vetoed to make a political point or pander to their base. Did someone mention a bridge in Brooklyn they wanted to sell to me in a previous post? I think I could buy it and make a tidy sum flipping it to anyone who believes that, oh let’s say Trent Lott or Newt Gingrich, would never stoop to political theater.
About base closings being used as a political tool, check the details of administration suggestions for which bases to close in the recent round of BRAC deliberations. Fortunately the process is sufficiently insulated from politics that the administration’s obvious bias toward ‘rewarding’ red states and ‘punishing’ blues states had to give way to actually considering the better interests of our military preparedness.
I echo your thoughts on the subject. What a tragedy that our “leadership” is so shortsighted! The political game playing would be almost laughable if it wasn’t so sad.
I keep wondering if we even have any statesmen from either party who understand that true leadership is about serving the country, and not the other way around. They seem to think it’s all about THEM, and their power struggles; meanwhile the country suffers.
On the plus side: can you even picture events like those in Pakistan happening here? Even with all of our country’s problems, it’s still the greatest nation on earth.
douglas: Thanks for the correction. I’ve changed it in the body of the post.
I’d gone back to the Politico article to try to see if I could glean a name of one of those Democratic leaders, and I must have reread it way too quickly and posted the wrong name. As it turns out, they remain anonymous, even in the Politico article.
The Democrat Party has a serious quandry. There is now a disconnect between the origins of the war (was it justified or not) and the conduct of the rebuild of Iraq and end to terror. The second part is going much better than expected because of local politics in Iraq (what great Democrat Speaker tolkd us “all politics is local”), the aggressiveness and logic of the U.S. military “surge” tactics and I suspect a weariness of the Iraqi people. The Democrat dominated Congress needs an issue that will work. Americans are not terribly interested in the “cause” of the war—that’s old news. And more and more Americans see the good work of the military and the accomplishments. I count myself in this group by the way. Our kids are doing a great job and the new leadership has a clear goal and the will to accomplish those goals.
In the end, the Democrat party, and the worst Democrat leadership in House and Senate in decades, “Botox” Pelosi and “Dingy” Reid, two of the most uninspiring “leaders” this side of watching bread rise, will bring disaster to the Party candidates if they cannot score points. They know this. But like the kamikazie piolts of WW II, they need to at least try to slow what the Republicans will point to as good work in Iraq. It is still a long way to election day for the Nation, no matter what the primaries bring, and if the Democrat issues are gone–almost all war issues–they know their message will ring hollow. The problem is, will the Republican Party be able to focus the electorate on the accomplishments and positives, not the negatives, and will the economy remain strong.
Chris. It wasn’t a republican congressman who said that good news from Iraq “would be a big problem for us.”
Whatever fate various of us would wish on the dem surrender-before-we-win crowd, the fact is, they are trying to arrange for us to lose.
We are not required to take that as a good thing.
And we are allowed to speculate as to motive.
The 70% figure is bogus. If it even appears anywhere, it includes those who, like me answered
“not satisfied” with the conduct of the war because it is not being fought with sufficient intensity. It includes those who would like to be out eventually without a firm date and those who would also like a pink pony.
How many, do you think, would like to have the troops out of Europe and Korea? Would they like to do so if the result was catastrophe?
Nice to hear, Chris, you respect the will of the American people. I suspect we’d hear differently wrt other issues. Say, for example, Roe is overturned and it’s up to the states. How about gun control? Immigration?
One of today’s posts ties into Chris White’s remarks.
Here is a sampling of recent polls.
From the World Public Opinion.org web site (A publication of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland)
Three in five Americans (61%) think US forces should get out of Iraq within a year, including 24 percent who favor immediate withdrawal and 37 percent who prefer a one year timetable. Another 32 percent of Americans say the forces should stay until security improves.
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll Nov. 1-5, 2007
In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W. Bush is doing in handling the situation in Iraq?”.
Approve 27% Disapprove 68% Unsure 5%
When it comes to the war in Iraq, which of the following statements comes closer to your point of view? The most responsible thing we can do is find a way to withdraw most of our troops from Iraq by the beginning of 2009. The most responsible thing we can do is to remain in Iraq until the situation in the country is stable.”
Withdraw Most Troops By 2009 55% Remain Until Country Stable 40% Unsure 5%
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll 10/12-14/07
“Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?”
Favor 34% Oppose 65% Unsure 2%
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007
“All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?”
Worth It 38% Not Worth It 59% Unsure 3%
I couldn’t find a figure on how many want a pink pony.
Chris. What does “disapprove” mean?
Technical differences on COIN?
Insufficient vigor?
Shouldn’t be there?
Stupid ROE?
There is no possible way to connect the “disapprove” question to a demand for withdrawal.
As Neo said in her post, this is about BDS.
How many people know jack about the war (lots), but hate it because Bush is president?
That’s a point of view, but not a useful one in running the country.
People with BDS are allowed to vote. Being allowed to vote doesn’t mean knowing anything useful, and doesn’t exclude those who know a lot which ain’t so.
Problem with the BDS people is, unlike more rational folks, they got more misinformed as time went on because BDS demands it. It’s one thing to be misinformed and come to an erroneous conclusion. It’s another to hate Bush and begin absorbing as fact things which are absolutely false. Of course, in this case, the raw material for misinforming is provided by the left and the journos and the dems. Still, a rational person ought to be able to make some distinction between that which is false but not obviously so and that which is obviously false. But BDS sufferers eat up both categories with a large spoon.
I’ve had some discussions with them. You just have to understand that there is nothing in reality which makes the slightest difference to them. Nothing.
Yes, and 10/10 Americans thought we should remain strictly neutral in the runup to Pearl Harbor. But FDR saw further, and aided Britain (Lend-Lease, convoy protection – see Reuben James), all clear acts of war, and all clearly prohibited by the Neutrality Act – because he saw doing so as in the best long-term interests of the US.
And poll aficionados should note that only 11% approve of the job the Democrat-controlled Congress is doing. Congress should only live long enough to receive GWB’s approval ratings.
But in my view, the only one that matters takes place next November.
What astonishes me is the number of folks who hated Bush before the war. Why didn’t he sign Kyoto?
Because Clinton signed it and didn’t send it to Congress. There’s no room for Bush’s signature there, anyway. It’s a done deal.
Make a difference to the BDS crew?
Right.
That’s one example of an irrational reason to hate Bush. For not doing something he wasn’t in a position to do, which had already been done. And not caring about the facts.
For lying–to oneself at first–about Bush taking the 2000 election to the Supreme Court. It was Gore’s idea. And having the US Supreme Court weigh in was the alternative to the situation at the time, which was to have the Florida State Supreme Court decide a national election.
Make a difference to the BDS folks?
Maybe someone should start a movement to start using ‘Republic Party’ and talk about ‘Republic’ politicians with a sneering tone of voice in an effort to create a new pejorative the same way ‘Democrat Party’ has replaced ‘Democratic’ among so many on the right of late.
As for the polling data about how Americans view the war, when the polls are with you, use them; when they aren’t, deny they’re valid or claim they’re meaningless anyway.
Please note that I did not defend congressional Democratic maneuvering to score political points, merely pointed out that it is a trait shared by both political parties. I do, however, find the over-the-top accusations of treason and the like for anyone who does not agree with the neocon view of the world around here infantile, like a gang of playground bullies beating up a couple of geeks.
As previously noted, I find the amount of projection that goes on here is astounding. Unless one is contributing to the echo chamber effect they’re to be attacked and ground into dust. While I’m no neocon (I tend to use “progressive” when asked to define my views) I’ve never belonged to a political party and have voted for Democratic, Republican, Green and unaffiliated candidates.
For what it is worth, I argue with mindless ninnies on the left who want to see us bring all the troops home tomorrow. While I don’t think we should have invaded in the first place, especially with the lack of planning for how to proceed with the occupation and reconstruction once the invasion was over, count me among the “pottery barn rule” folks who figure we broke it so we own it until we fix it. I see continued problems for years, especially if the current administration manages to further bollix up things in the region vis a vis Iran and Pakistan before leaving office.
cons are enemies of America, you are low life traitors to your own country, Milton Friedman was an anti-american scumbag. The keeper of this blog is a traitor to america, she bought into the fear that the filthy neo-cons love to exploit. Their agenda is to privitize the entire country, as milton friedman wrote about.
They are Anti-americans at their core, and they explot braind dead people like this blogger, who bought right into the fear, the blogger is suffering from PSD, post traumatic stress disorder from 9-11.
to support neo-conservatism and claim to be a patriot is impossible. Neo-conservatism is Anti-American at it’s foundations. It is against the commons, against the working class and represents the elite, profits over people
Neo-conservatsim is beyond a dirty word, it is treason, Anti-american treason.
Neo-cons should be tried with treason. Any ideology against the common good is Anti-American to it’s core and all who support this, deserve to be tried with treason. Neo-conservatism is Anti-american
got a problem?
too damm bad, your nothing but an enabler (the bloggger) aiding an anti-American ideology. They exploited your fears, you turned your back on the American way of life because of 9-11
neo-conservatives used you to the core. you are what they call a useful idiot
Luckilly 80% of America rejects you, your failed ideology and the GOP
Im main stream america, I represent the commons. We the people reject privitization of the entire country
we the people support public schools, a public military, public libraries, public roadfs. We reject privitization of America, against the commons and existing only for profits.
This is Anti-Americanism at its core, privitization of America is traitorous, neo-conservatism , is a threat to our great nation
people first! The commons first.
That is the american way. wake up useful idiot, snap out of the 9-11 depresssion, you sold your soul to the devil
[NOTE from neo-neocon: I left this one in, although clearly posted by a troll, because it’s such an excellent example of what I suppose could be called NDS: (Neocon Derangement Syndrome)—a sort of companion to BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).]
neo-neocon, I think this one falls into your professional bailiwick.
The what? The “Commons”? What the hell is that? I suspect that means “people with their hands out”.
harry.
Not both hands. One has an ax with which to behead the golden goose.
Ah yes, hysterical nut jobs DO come in all flavors.
Chris:
When the Democrats start thinking democratically, I’ll put the “ic” back in the Democrat Party. And if it’s “Democratic,” why do the Democrats not call themselves “Democratics”?
Chris, don’t oppress this activist, who is just “speaking truth to power” in the time-honored fashion.
Richard, what matters to the BDS boyos is annihilating the enemy. In this sense, and only this sense, we have much in common. For we also wish to annihilate our enemies, do we not?
That is all that matters in the end.
Occam’s Razor wrote:
Robespierre’s fashion, perhaps?
If we have to have Democratic politicians and Democratic policies, do we also have to have a Rebublicanic Politicians and Republicanic policies?
And why do liberals get so worked up over this?
I think Sergey said it best – they are in the last throes of a movement dying from its own contradictions and all the neurons are beginning to fire randomly.
Someone, I forget who, once wrote that when problems seem overwhelming, people start obsessing with irrelevancies.
To me, they are Democrats…no more democratic that your typical [fill in the blank] Democratic Peoples Republics.
The commons are the American people. Legislation for Americans, a stronger FDA, stronger regulation on business, the enviornment, legislation for the peple, not the corporation. We are not the radicals, you are the radicals, the neo-conservative movemnent is about ripping apart the government, that is for the people and replacing with a government for the corporation. Nothing to do with handouts, its called a functioning government.
real conservatives are with me, John Dean, says the same exact thing, I have been saying.
Ms.neo-con, a real political scientist found your site, and now you must try to mock what I stand for. Traditional American government. government for the commons. IF you took a political science class, you might understand this concept, if you were not indoctrinated by an Anti-American ideology, you would get it..
The Ametican people understand the differnence, Kristol and all the others are radical, enemies of this country. This is a country with a representatiive government for the COMMONS, not just the rich. Neo-conservatism= an aristrocracy.
Im on the page mainstream politics, you are the radical. Anyone who considers themself a neo-con is a radical far right winger, boarding on fascism
Try to laugh it away, I speak the truth, what you crackpots support drove me to the left, far left I used to be a right winger, until I became educated as to what kind of radical vision of America cons have, a privitized country, run for the elite not the commons.
This has nothing to do with handouts, you subversive cons try to simplify everything into class warfare. So against “welfare”, god forbid a poor family in Americas gets a hand, god forbid, but 1.2 trillion for a war, you sick, Anti-American degenerates do not care.
you take war over the people
you take corporations over people
Can anyone explain to me, what you stand for becides war and privitization of the entire government?
I lay the challange.
Can you do betterthatn “bush derangement syndrome”, which over 80% of America is suffering from?
another aspect of fascism, trying to turn what the PEOPLE think into the “far out” side…. Sorry, i represent what America is thinking and saying. Your policies have a 20%-26% approval rating in this country. You can’t keep marginilizing the people and calling it “Bush derangement”. You are suffering from a syndrome, “party over country” syndrome
The nation is with me
you are the moonbats now
Another tatic of the indoctrinated Anti-American right, when someone such as myself, lays out a challange to your flawed and Anti-american ideology, all of a sudden I’m a troll. Why are you teriffied of debate????
I have a radio forum, I’m on the air. I have a few hundred listeners on my podcast. I welcome debate, Im not a troll, Im defending American values, you defend radical anti-american neo-conservstive, profits over people values.
Troll?
Im a PATRIOT
you suffer from PTS disorder, as I have said. Post traumatic stress disorder as the result of 9-11 and neo-cons use people like you, the hurt, the mentally wounded to minipulate and use for their sick cause. Being a neo-con is nothing to be proud of, a cabal of profits-over people war profiteering enemies of the state, using lost souls, who were hurt on 9-11 for political gain. seek therapy. You need it. I mean this in all seriousness, neo-conservstism is anti-american. You do not have to be a liberaleither. They exploited your fears , they got you to turn your back on the American way of life for a radical fascist, aritocratic agenda.
I defined exactly what neo-conservatism is, a profits over people, business over people, form of government, where the commons come last, and the elite come first.
Why do you support an Anti-American ideology? Is it because 9-11 scared you? If that is your answer I proved my point, they are exploiting your PTS
You can practically hear the spittle.
I have a radio forum, I’m on the air.
So you really can broadcast from dental fillings? Learn something every day.
A “real political scientist,” no less. I’m amazed.
There is a site, Bill Quick, I think, who used to have a lefty who would write long, long screeds, much better organized than this. Long, long ones. Over and over. Same points. Same falsehoods. Same obviously planted axioms. Unfortunately for him, they didn’t look pre-fab. It appeared they were all real-time compositions. He had to actually write this stuff, rather than clicking on a link or inserting a previously-used essay.
Keeps’em out of trouble, I guess.
Original work by the Left is always a taxing and rare occurence, Richard.
Easy to support a war that you don’t have to fight or pay for right? Easy to be patriotic and call the side that wants accountability unpatriotic.
I mean after all “we” are winning right?
So very easy to support a war when you aren’t asked to do anything for that war except to “stay the course” while other people’s kids do the fightin’ for ya’. And, the best part is, “we give you a tax cut” to show how much we appreciate it.
Laura:
Everybody got tax cuts, or didn’t you notice? Everybody’s paying for this war. Easy to criticize when you don’t pay attention to what’s going on, isn’t it?
another aspect of fascism, trying to turn what the PEOPLE think into the “far out” side…. Sorry, i represent what America is thinking and saying.
Projection?
Laura, it’s easy to oppose putting an end to a genocidal dictatorship when you’re children aren’t starving to death, when your family members aren’t dying in Saddam’s torture chambers, when your parents weren’t gassed. It’s easy to call all that ‘peace’ and sing ‘la-la-la-la’ and pretend the world is all sunshine and flowers and flying kites, if only we want it to be.
It’s easy to ignore twelve years of calls for accountability, and then hate those who called for it when they get it.
Laura’s problem is that when you can’t find a target to vent your hate upon, you end up like the Ayrabs.
Some people may be satisfied with supporting or not supporting the war, each via their own means, but some people aren’t. Aren’t satisfied that is. The core of bitterness is always there for them, and it simply gets worse as time goes on. They can’t let go of it because they don’t want to let go of it.
Their purpose is flawed in some ways. Many can find purpose in involving themselves in Soldier’s Angels or some other program to further channel their view of the war, mostly good or even if it is a bad view of the war. Most of the time, channeling energies into such markets produces peace and satisfaction, if not exactly happiness with the state of things. So the obvious question is, how can someone doing many things for the troops still be harboring the core of vindictiveness, bitterness, and enmity towards all and sundry? Healing rifts in Iraq and damping down violence requires a purpose designed to create a better world. One cannot create peace of mind in others when one doesn’t have it in oneself.
In the end, what is Laura most upset by? The fact that Bush and company won’t do what she wants them to? Or is it simply that Laura can’t make herself let things go that she knows ought to be let go?
This anger displacement problem seems to veer from actual war policy such as Petraeus’ COIn to a much less threatening subject, which is Bush’s tax cuts. How Bush’s tax cuts are an appropriate target for anger at Bush’s war policy seems a bit irrational on the face. But then again, fury, whether Ayrab or not, is often irrational on the face.