A SURREAL DEBATE
Harry Reid wasn’t pulling any punches in this call to action on the Democrat’s Senate blog:
The high temperature in Baghdad today is 113 degrees. But our troops will wear their 100 pounds of gear and bravely go about the jobs that they are given. By nightfall, it is likely that some of them will die. It is certain that more will be wounded. The rest will end another day on foreign sand, not knowing when they will come home to American soil.
“Those 160,000 troops are heroes. Every single one of them. They are serving with courage despite enormous hardships and without even proper equipment. They are serving with courage despite a President who took us into war falsely, prematurely and recklessly. They are serving with courage despite a President who refused to form a coalition of nations to share their awful burden of sacrifice. They are serving with courage despite a President who has never had a plan for peace. And they are serving with courage despite Republicans in Congress who are blocking us from passing laws that will bring a responsible end to the war.
(Italicized portions could have been lifted from 10,000 blog posts and Democratic campaign speeches over the last 4 years. Ed.)
“I want everyone here tonight – every American from coast to coast – to know that we won’t stop fighting until we end this war. That is what this night is all about.
Elegant, symmetrical, logical - and utterly false. Does Harry think people have forgotten that our boys sat in the desert for nearly 5 months waiting on the UN, waiting on our allies, waiting on Saddam to simply comply with one - just one - of the 11 Security Council resolutions passed in the previous ten years? Bush didn’t “refuse” to form a coalition. That would have meant that others offered to help and he turned them down. Or that he didn’t ask our allies for help. Nothing of the sort happened, of course, which makes Harry Reid a bald faced liar about that and other facets of his rewritten history. I will have to congratulate him for condensing The Narrative into two or three paragraphs of pungent, if overwrought prose. And, of course, it is to one end only that all of this hysteria is being ginned up.
Ending the war is easy, Harry. The hard part is answering the question then what?
Despite warnings of catastrophe in Iraq if we pull out precipitously from just about every analyst who has bothered to look at the problem of our disengagement - good, smart people from both parties and both ends of the political spectrum - the Democrats insisted on going to the mattresses last night in their war against a man that they have allowed their hate and loathing to overtake any semblance of common sense and patriotism.
And lest anyone think the Democrats “changing course” in Iraq means that they have a plan to end the war, here’s Senator Levin on that subject:
Does Congress pass legislation to instruct the President on the details of a withdrawal? Do they dictate terms on how to involve NATO or other allies? Or even on how to negotiate with Iran and Syria over the withdrawal? And what if something happens to U.S. troops during the pullout or Iraq rapidly plunges into a bloody civil war as U.S. troops are leaving? Who is to blame? Bush? Congress?
“Those are not decisions that I’m either going to make, or get involved with,” Senate Armed Forces Committee Chairman Carl Levin told TIME. “Assuming everything worked out perfectly, that’s the middle of next year, that’s early next year, so that’s not something that’s we’re focusing on.”
In other words, folks, last night was not about policy. It was not about loving the troops so much you want to bring them home. It was not about any concern whatsoever for Iraq and what would happen if we leave - even in an orderly manner.
Last night was about the politics of blame pure and simple. It was about the Democrats being terrified that caving in to their base on Iraq and bringing the troops home in a Dunkirk style evacuation will precipitate a chain of events in Iraq and the Middle East that would result in genocide, war, and al-Qaeda triumphant.
Being politicians with finely honed instincts for survival and with absolutely no clue about what to do in Iraq (join the club, guys), they seek to shift responsibility for the coming catastrophe precipitated by our withdrawal and all the blunders, errors, mistakes, and stupidities that have marked our adventure in Mesopotamia these last 4 years in order to be able to face the voters and point the finger at their political foes.
This will no doubt serve the purpose of getting them re-elected. And it will also probably serve to increase their numbers substantially when Congress convenes in January of 2009.
But at what price? Remember, the Democrats do not have a plan, do not have a clue on what to do next in Iraq. The “timetable” is a smokescreen. They no more expect Bush to meet that timetable than they do pigs to fly. It is political gamesmanship, nothing more.
Meeting this timetable would lead to rivers of blood being spilled. Bush won’t do it which is great political news for the Democrats. Just think of all the opportunities they will have between now and the election to get up on the floor of the House or Senate and rail against the President and Republicans for not meeting their demands to “end the war.” The Democrats no more want to end the war than al-Qaeda does. “Ending the war” now wouldn’t end anything in Iraq. It would only be the beginning - and Democrats want to be absolutely certain that the resulting chaos and destruction leaves them lily white and blameless.
I suppose it’s too much to ask politicians to put the needs of the country first and their careers and party subservient to that. But one would think that when it comes to confronting the truly great issues of our time, politicians would act like leaders and not screaming infants who have wet their pants or worse, juveniles on a playground sticking out their tongues at one another, trying to shift blame for starting a fight to the other kid.
In the meantime, the Administration remains committed to giving General Petraeus until September to make things better in Iraq. A tall order, that. The Iraqi Parliament, charged with nothing less than saving their country from a bloodbath by coming to grips with issues of power sharing, reconciliation, and political salvation, have decided that August in Bagdad is much to hot and will go into recess in order to cool off.
No word on how our boys, humping 100 pounds of gear in 130 degree heat, risking their lives to give the Iraqi government a chance to deal with its problems might feel about Iraqi parliamentarians taking a break to go to the beach in Dubai. Perhaps we should give them a vacation too. They’ve earned it a helluva lot more than the faithless Iraqi government whose intransigence on every single political issue vitally necessary to bringing their country together is making Petreaus and our boys work themselves to exhaustion for nothing.
Eventually, the Democrats will win out and they’ll get their timetable. And that’s when the pressure from the netnuts will really begin. Democrats will be forced to try and hold Bush’s feet to the fire on sticking to the evacuation while all hell is breaking loose in Iraq. This will give the Democrats additional opportunities to posture. We’ll have more votes about funding the war with more direction from Congress about how to skedaddle in the face of al-Qaeda terrorism and attacks. And the closer to the election, they more strident and unreasonable they will become.
That is, until a Democrat is elected President. Then the calls for bi-partisan unity will ring from the Capitol Dome and all will be peace and harmony. Perhaps they can all get a head start and do that “bi-partisan unity” thing starting now.
Fat chance.
Just for once folks, please understand that impeach speech does nothing to help the situation. Let’s see what you have to offer, post an idea. I’m sure there are those in the Government reading these Blogs (or at least I would hope so). This game of let’s see what the other guy does, then if it goes wrong we can nail him with it. That doesn’t help advance anything except the other side.
I shouldn’t be surprised though, because this attitude is rampant today everywhere. A problem will surface, let’s say a screw needs to be tightened to keep the door knob from falling off. Three people have walked by, with a little screwdriver on their keychains and could have fixed the problem in 5 seconds, but they didn’t. Why, well that’s a good question. Some may not like the maintenance guy, and would like to see him fired. So fixing the screw would help this guy out, and possibly allow him to claim he did a good job. Others are afraid that if they touch the Door Knob, and then something turns up missing, they may be liable or blaimed. Again, it’s not my job, I don’t to get involved. Finally, you have a guy come by, fixes the screw, and when asked by the other two why did you do that. He says, the way I saw it, somebody could have been hurt, or trapped in this room while we debated what to do, or who to call, or who can we blaim this on. I kinda like the Nike slogan “Just do it”. That kinda sums it up don’t you think.
OK, so now that I’ve spent the last 15 minutes typing this, I’m very curious to see how others think. Thanks……
Comment by Tacfire — 7/18/2007 @ 8:45 am
[...] Update 8:30am Eastern. While the Senators drone, U.S. captures leader of Islamic State of Iraq. Jules Crittenden notes that some wobbly Republicans who were distancing themselves from Bush are now wobbling away from the Dems. And Rick Moran boils down last night’s debate: “Last night was about the politics of blame pure and simple. It was about the Democrats being terrified that caving in to their base on Iraq and bringing the troops home in a Dunkirk style evacuation will precipitate a chain of events in Iraq and the Middle East that would result in genocide, war, and al-Qaeda triumphant. Being politicians with finely honed instincts for survival and with absolutely no clue about what to do in Iraq (join the club, guys), they seek to shift responsibility for the coming catastrophe precipitated by our withdrawal and all the blunders, errors, mistakes, and stupidities that have marked our adventure in Mesopotamia these last 4 years in order to be able to face the voters and point the finger at their political foes.” [...]
Pingback by Michelle Malkin » The Senate slumber party–Open thread Update: 10:10pm Stunts and snoozes…now Lieberman speaks Update: Dems in the majority whine, “Let us vote”…11:54pm Menendez screams about “tyranny of the minor — 7/18/2007 @ 8:45 am
Just in case folks have forgotten the intransigence of Saddam, and the worthlessness of UN resolutions, back in 2003 before the invasion, I compiled a list of the resolutions on Iraq.
http://paxety.com/Archive/20030225UNresolutions.html
Comment by Juan Paxety — 7/18/2007 @ 8:46 am
What’s the hurry?…
They have to do this while Bush is still president. If they don’t, there’s an even chance that they’ll have to make this decision, which will likely mean the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, with a Democrat in the White House….
Trackback by Can't See the Center >> What's the hurry? — 7/18/2007 @ 8:53 am
SEC. 1535. REDUCTION AND TRANSITION OF UNITED STATES FORCES IN IRAQ.
(a) Deadline for Commencement of Reduction.–The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Implementation of Reduction as Part of Comprehensive Strategy.–The reduction of forces required by this section shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq’s neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq. As part of this effort, the President shall direct the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the United Nations to seek the appointment of an international mediator in Iraq, under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council, who has the authority of the international community to engage political, religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders in Iraq in an inclusive political process.
(c) Limited Presence After Reduction and Transition.–After the conclusion of the reduction and transition of United States forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following missions:
(1) Protecting United States and Coalition personnel and infrastructure.
(2) Training, equipping, and providing logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces.
(3) Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations.
(d) Completion of Transition.–The Secretary of Defense shall complete the transition of United States forces to a limited presence and missions as described in subsection (c) by April 30, 2008.
The real rub here is section (b). Obviously, Congress is trying to tread on Executive branch territory.
Beyond that, Bush could simply send more troops to Iraq prior to the 120 day date and then pull them out before April 30, 2008 to comply, as sections (c), (1), (2) and (3) are pretty much what is going on now.
Of course, there would still be room to “mold” the public’s mind to what they would like this amendment to say, since nobody actually reads this stuff anyway.
Comment by Neo — 7/18/2007 @ 9:09 am
To say Reid is empty suit is insult to empty suits. You’ve captured his total lack of ideas brilliantly with the way he trolled for best of nutroot blogs of past speeches to craft his opening web of lies.
And Levin, what a craven coward, already conceding defeat to Iran and Syria while refusing be a part of negotiating terms of withdrawal (surrender) since that’s above his pay grade. The Dunkirk image is brilliant, too.
This will surely backfire and get them on record as aspiring to defeat without compunction.
With Petreaus’ plan, our troops are wiping out the Sunni and Shi’ite terrorist groups and Democrats are terrified Bush is going pull this off. That’s what this all nighter was about.
Comment by steve — 7/18/2007 @ 9:32 am
Only only the blogs can we bypass the Media defeatism message.
MoveOn is on their summer surge and Reid and the Dems are dancing to their tune.
He just promised to repeat this process as MoveOn is demanding.
After funding the surge and appointing General P to handle it, they must be sensing the war in Iraq is turning our way to be willing to jump the shark on this issue contrary to legislation they passed earlier.
Comment by SlimGuy — 7/18/2007 @ 11:14 am
I loved the comment about 3am this morning made by one of the Republicans that under this amendment we would have to ask a guy caught planting an IED if he was AQ or secretarian civil war type and that AQ must now be required to wear Tshirts so we would only take out bad guys allowed under the bill.
Comment by SlimGuy — 7/18/2007 @ 11:18 am
Seems folks here are over-analyzing. The all-nighter was about showing the Republicans, who once were the world’s biggest advocates of up-or-down votes, that simply stating the intention to filibuster would not be enough. With each battle like this, the fact that a minority is obstructing a bipartisan majority in the Senate that represents the will of 70 percent of the American people will become increasingly obvious.
Say, help me out here. McConnell said several times that the Reed-Levin bill could have been voted on at any time, so the overnight session was political theater. But when he had a chance to allow the amendment to be voted on, he voted no (against cloture). The vote on cloture was about whether to allow Reed-Levin to come to a vote. Since it was not allowed, McConnell must be lying. What he must have meant is that the Senate could have voted on cloture at any time. Well, of course. That was the whole point. But McConnell cannot stop himself from mischaracterizing a situation to serve his own partisan interests. My question is why he felt it necessary to lie? Is it just a knee-jerk response for Republicans?
Comment by johnuw93 — 7/18/2007 @ 11:22 am
Oh, and steve, what has been backfiring on the Democrats has been not doing enough to stop Bush and Cheney. If you think stronger action to force a change of policy will backfire in favor of Bush and the pro-war crowd, you are delusional. No offense intended.
Comment by johnuw93 — 7/18/2007 @ 11:24 am
It looks like rick is still playing at being nostradomus.
Comment by bushappy — 7/18/2007 @ 1:44 pm
Steve wrote:
“With Petreaus’ plan, our troops are wiping out the Sunni and Shi’ite terrorist groups and Democrats are terrified Bush is going pull this off.”
SlimGuy assisted:
“After funding the surge and appointing General P to handle it, they must be sensing the war in Iraq is turning our way …”
We will have a chance to see whether this will come true. GWBush will “stay the course”, so we all will see whether the war is (once again!) turning, whether terror groups are “wiped out” …
What will people like SlimGuy or Steve tell us when General Petraeus’s strategy will not succeed? (And there is little chance that it will!)
They will never ever give up the language of victory. They cannot but believe in victory. Defeat is no option. And cannot and will not happen.
What kind of mindset it that?
Defeat is something normal in life. It’s always an advantage to be a good loser. It helps to avoid complete ruin (because you can stop early enough), it helps to overcome the stress of losing, it helps to learn from defeat, it helps to understand life and to adapt to reality.
Only very weak and desperate characters feel coerced to INSIST in winning, no matter how costly, no matter how unlikely winning might become.
Comment by leo — 7/18/2007 @ 4:09 pm
Hey Rick, Look at the bright side, while the Democrats are posturing about the war without taking any accountability or responsibility for their actions! Their not wasting money on worthless welfare programs or trying to shove Amnesty down our throats!!
Comment by Bart Smith — 7/18/2007 @ 4:59 pm
Hey Bart it was your bonehead president and McCain pushing the amnesty bill, don’t start your bs propaganda here.Sure victory is just around the corner in Iraq, even though there has been no political progress from the Maliki government. Wake up people, Iraqs a mess and staying there won’t help. Let the gop stand by their man, the Democrats will increase their majorities in both Houses. Let the goopers follow the boy king right off a cliff.
Comment by Joe Helgerson — 7/18/2007 @ 8:44 pm
Uh, I think Bart was kidding dude.
And I don’t get it…With almost 70% of this country against this war, a Democratic attempt to end it is pandering to it’s “base”
qed, 70% of the country = the Democratic party’s base. no wonder Republicans are scared. that’s not even counting swing voters or those who dont even vote in the primaries.
Comment by Analogboy — 7/18/2007 @ 9:43 pm
“Despite warnings of catastrophe in Iraq if we pull out precipitously from just about every analyst who has bothered to look at the problem of our disengagement – good, smart people from both parties and both ends of the political spectrum – the Democrats insisted on going to the mattresses last night in their war against a man that they have allowed their hate and loathing to overtake any semblance of common sense and patriotism.”
Couple of problems here. Evidently, Maliki does not agree that catastrophe will ensue if US soldiers leave. He says, go any time. Most Iraqis agree. A number of analysts have outlined likely scenarios after departure that do not spell disaster, unless you consider Halliburton’s prospects an important factor. The other is that the author is so persuaded of the obvious rationality of his own position that no reason for opposing it can exist save hatred for George Bush. Why hate Bush? He is just one more empty suit representative of his class. He may be a particularly obnoxious one, but they’d throw up another one if he were not available. Take Giuliani, or Romney, say. Or Hillary Clinton, for that matter. The problem is not personal animus against W. It is the policy. Yawl need to realize that.
Comment by johnuw93 — 7/18/2007 @ 11:43 pm
Hey Kids Iraq is a mess, but your worthless Dem’s in congress are contributing absolutely zero towards a real solution.. the last time I looked Sen. Kennedy’s name was very prominent on the document. As far as BS look closer to home!!
Comment by Bart Smith — 7/19/2007 @ 1:39 am
Bye the way He ain’t the greatest President but he sure outshines the Democrats choice of John Kerry.
Comment by Bart Smith — 7/19/2007 @ 1:42 am
Rick Moran,
you say the Democrats play the blame game and don’t have a viable solution for Iraq.
With that you are right, of course.
But does that not also apply to the Republicans?
Why not attack both sides, when your critique attacks playing the blame game and lack of a viable policy for Iraq?
The blame game is inevitable - as long as you are willing to concede that there has to be responsibility and accountability in politics. Those who led the USA into the predicament should be held to account.
But it is NOT ONLY the blame game.
Almost 70% of the US voters do back now what the Democrats presented to the Senate. Why should the Democrats not demand the Republican Senators to vote pro or against partial withdrawal? That is legitimate politics, I dare say.
The Democrats’ proposal certainly is not about “Dunkirk evacuation”. There is not so much pressure on the “enduring bases” that this might become necessary soon. It is about a partial withdrawal, and a new strategy. Democrat Senators, different to part of their own basis, do not opt in favour of a complete withdrawal - at least not right now.
There is not any really good solution to the Iraq desaster. Most Americans now - and me and you, too - would prefer one or other version of the Baker-Hamilton plan. Some Republican Senators do so, too. So there might be a majority, 60 or more votes in the Senate for that option.
Why are these Republicans not willing to allow a majority vote in the Senate?
Comment by leo — 7/19/2007 @ 4:18 am
This is why I love politics so much. It’s just pure F’ING insanity.
Republicans spend like six whole years F’ING up the country. Literally. They get booted in the election, then they sit back and screw with, and laugh at, the Dems as they struggle pathetically to fix the mess. It’s classic.
I’m so happy to be an independant.
Comment by tHePeOPle — 7/19/2007 @ 11:54 am
Im sick of these “pussy filibusters” where no one actually has to sacrifice their time. If they want to filibuster let them actually take to the floor and read a book or something. Dont just let them signal their “intention” to filibuster to get the advantages without having to do actually do anything, which is the way we do it now.
Comment by r4d20 — 7/19/2007 @ 12:23 pm
[...] Right Wing Nuthouse pokes holes in Senator Reid’s reasoning. [...]
Pingback by shyspeak.net » Blog Archive » Senate Sleepover a Bust — 7/19/2007 @ 3:22 pm