The New Democratic Congressional Theater
You may recall I wrote a series of posts about the Democrats’ proposals to block the surge and its funding (see this, for example).
You may also recall I recently wrote about an effort by Bush to lock in an alliance with Iraq in such a way as to make it impervious (or at least resistant) to dismantling by his successor.
Now it turns out that the antiwar leadership has turned its attention from the poorly-thought-out and doomed-from-the-start efforts to block war funding. Even they realize this one is dead in the water. In a meeting of a coalition of twenty antiwar groups last week, spokesman John Isaacs is quoted as saying:
“We got our heads together and decided to go a different way. The consensus was not to keep beating our heads against the wall trying to block every funding bill ”” not because we don’t agree with it, but because we don’t have the votes.
Now the group—and its Democratic leaders in Congress, such as candidates Clinton and Obama—is focusing on the newest front, Bush’s attempt to forge a lasting cooperative pact with Iraq. I’m not sure why they think this has more prospect of passing, or will curry more favor with the American public, than their earlier efforts. But they seem to think they have a winner here.
This is what was said on the subject during the most recent Democratic debate:
…Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) referenced the kind of legislation that the anti-war crowd will be backing when she asked Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) if he would co-sponsor a bill to prevent the president from entering into any long-term agreements with the Iraqi government without consulting Congress.
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama will “support all common-sense efforts to ensure that President Bush does not tie the hands of future presidents through agreements with the Iraqi government.”
And I thought these people were interested in diplomacy! (/sarcasm).
I suppose next there will be a bill to negate NATO and other alliances that “tie the hands of future presidents through agreements with the (fill in the blank) government.”
[ADDENDUM: Right on schedule, the NY Times weighs in. Guess, if you can, who they agree with on this one (hint: it’s not me).]
I’m looking forward to bills that will tie the hands of future voters that seek to vote anything other than Democrat.
I’m not sure who their audience is anymore. Haven’t most of the serious anti-war voters pretty much turned their backs on them in disgust?
My God, it really is loose at any cost isnt it?
And the left wont even pick up on how much this makes them out to be sniveling hypocrites who can just this easily abandon other human beings to turmoil, death and despotism in order to keep the truth of the lefts own cowardly soulless despicable nihilism concealed.
Of course on a very fundamental level they realize this truth about themselves while planting make-shift coffins on the side walk across from Walter Reed, but they dont want to dwell there. Thats why our efforts must not succeed no matter what.
I’m looking forward to bills that will tie the hands of future voters that seek to vote anything other than Democrat.
Social and familial opprobrium accomplishes that more effectively and with more alienation and tears!
Leftists love a shibboleth, though not a taboo, and if you can be chased out of the blue cities into the red countryside, they will feel requited as it mirrors their own flight from bumf*$% to urban hipness.
Villagers with pitchforks and torches chasing the monster=leftist feelgood.
Lone hero stands on his honor and kills the monster while villagers flee=”he’s just as bad as the monster!”
You wanna be a Good Person, don’t you?
I heard Dennis Kucinich today interviewed on a conservative talk show. (Lars Larson). After receiving just kudos for even agreeing to take questions from a conservative host, Kucinich was challenged about his vote on Iraq and his stance that we should never have invaded Iraq in the first place. Larson asked him to square that position with Kucinich’s record supporting Bill Clinton’s 1998 policy of regime change in Iraq. The simple question was: If not by military means, how was this policy goal expected to come about?
After much dancing around the periphery of the issue, (Bush lied, people died), Kucinich lamely offered that a diplomatic solution could have been achieved.
I thought; you know, thats a good enough answer if your talking to your core constituents, they dont care that your solution is lame either. But here, running for the nations higher office, thats simply not going to pass. How could you even offer that?
Kucinich was born a little too early in history to hope to get elected president of this fine country, but In another generation or so, academia and public education will churn out a greater share of citizens who will except the same lack of reasoning without another thought.
This is Hillary speaking at length (unusual for her) on Fox about what economic things she wants to do.
it’s bone-chilling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Icix8emZtNM
And even more bone chilling is this Democrat-voter focus grouip reacting to the show last night
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f4hFCMrWqs
Vince, it’s the villagers with pitchforks and torches chasing the monster; with the rally cry of “Gimme!”
It’s not chilling, it’s exactly what I expect from the dirty, dirty left.
And I thought these people were interested in diplomacy!
Diplomacy to the Left simply means doing what they tell you to do. It has never meant anything else.
I suppose next there will be a bill to negate NATO and other alliances that “tie the hands of future presidents through agreements with the (fill in the blank) government.”
Don’t forget Geneva “the US needs to follow the treaties it signs” that the Left keeps bringing up. Are the Left for the US abiding by any other treaties we have signed? Only if the Left says so. And they said no for Cuba, Vietnam, and pretty much every other foreigner the Left thinks they can crush underfoot.
your new york times link is looping back on this one.
I don’t know why you think the American People are ready or willing to commit troops (over 100 bases in construction?) and resources for the next generation to a misguided, illegal, and deficit-building fiasco , especially when they are confident they are about to reign control from the Republicans. Reality check?
You know how you can tell when a Leftist is really desperate to make his point? He’ll appeal to Majority Opinion.
Because you know.. they always go along with what the majority wants.
The Democratic plan is indeed “Lose at any cost”. Politics is played in the US at a level where it’s seen as okay to hurt the national interest if that’s what it takes to win the Presidency.
The Republicans are not immune to this. Gingrich shut down government and then the Republicans insisted on a doomed attempt to impeach Bill Clinton out of office. Just for the propaganda value.
Being married to a President doesn’t make you qualified to be the President, likewise for being the son of the President.
Fred pulling a “Mitsu” here. All politics is all bad.
It wasnt Newt Gingrich that shut down the government in the 90’s. It was the democrats. The Republicans succeeded in impeaching Clinton. It just didnt amount to anything. Far from it being for mere propaganda value, it sought to punish a guy sitting in the highest office for actual perjury in the commission of an actual crime. Unlike what happened to Scooter Libby.
So, anyway Fred. Now that I’ve gotten all that out of the way–how are you going to vote this election cycle? Or are you going to sit this one out?
Many of the anti-war Left are now pretending to infiltrate the Right by supporting Ron Paul (Yay, go Paul go, go Paul go).
Paleoconservatives are probably not as cozy with this arrangement as it seems, they don’t like the post-modern Lefts good tidings towards radical Islam, but you get your philosophical allies where you can find them.