February 28, 2007
Desperate Dems Declare Dastardly Deal
Congressional Democrats, still struggling for attention from an increasingly bored and impatient electorate, have decided upon a new attempt to humiliate the president, undercut the troops, and perhaps finally, finally satisfy the nutroots that the elected leaders really are radicals and not just poseurs. If you can figure out what they're trying to do, my hat is off to you, because I can't make heads or teakettles out of it:
House Democratic leaders are developing an anti-war proposal that wouldn't cut off money for U.S. troops in Iraq while requiring President Bush to acknowledge problems with an overburdened military....
The tactic is more likely to embarrass Bush politically than force his hand on the war. He would have to sign repeated waivers for units and report to Congress those units with equipment shortfalls and other problems.
All right, show of hands... how many can honestly say they have any idea what the Democrats' plan actually entails? Isn't this AP story even more uninformative than usual? Why can't they just tell us what the Democrats plan to do?
A curious thought just occurred to me: many Democrats thought that the plan pushed by Rep. John "Mad Jack" Murtha (D-PA, 75%) was "brilliant": to enact a binding resolution putting all sorts of restrictions on the deployment of troops, each one supposedly for the good of the troops themselves.
For example, one element of the plot guaranteed, by law, one full year of "rest" between deployments -- followed by many months of training before they could be sent back. This would have made it virtually impossible to send reinforcements or relieve forces that had been in Iraq for a long deployment. The Democrats believed that they would be able to put the Republicans between Iraq and a hard peace, forcing them either to vote with the Democrats, or to vote against "helping out" the troops.
But then Murtha went and shot his mouth off on some internet interview site; he actually let the beans out of the cat about his real purpose: to strangle the new security operation a-borning, to kill it with kindness. This confession was picked up and bruited all about the internet, then all about conservative talk-radio, and finally all around the entire communications grid... and the Democrats had to call it off.
So now, with the warning firmly in cheek that "loose lips sink ships," along comes AP -- which runs a story about a new Democratic strategy, but fails to go into any details at all about it!
Coincidence? We report, you decide.
In any event, I doubt this will succeed any better than the other schemes. Here is the rapid-reaction Republican response:
The House Democrats' plan brought a sharp response from Brian Kennedy, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
"If this is the Democrats' last ditch effort to appease the ultraliberal wing of their party while appearing to support the troops at the same time, I don't think they are going to convince either one of any commitment whatsoever," Kennedy said. "This appears to be political posturing at its worst and yet another attempt to undermine the mission of our troops in harm's way. The American people are going to see right through it."
Tagged, bagged, and released back into the wild with a microburst transmitter up the drainpipe.
The Democrats (and the Bigfoot media) consistently misunderestimate the capacity of the American public to see through their little Kabuki dances. Just because Murtha didn't lurch to the mike to broadcast his too clever by half scheme this time doesn't mean that the voters will fail to see that this ruse is just the same as the earlier attempt to micromanage the war. Once bitten, twice shy.
Or to haul out another hoary quotation: "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence. The third time, Mr. Bond, is enemy action."
Don't let us meet for a third time, Mr. Murtha.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, February 28, 2007, at the time of 4:32 AM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1838
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Desperate Dems Declare Dastardly Deal:
» WED FEB 28 A Heck of a Lot of Wind from The Pink Flamingo
WEDNESDAY'S HEROS[Read More]
Tracked on February 28, 2007 9:31 PM
The following hissed in response by: charlotte
Democrats may be fairly open about not supporting this war or even most wars, but why are we not to question their support for our troops, as well? Who are they fooling? We’ve all heard Dem pols and pundits say:
Our soldiers are victims of the government and its imperialist policy, especially as schemed by Republican administrations. They're the pawns of neo-cons in service to Israeli interests (and/or the Bush family and Arab interests). They suffer at the hands of officers, the DoD and inept war managers. They are tricked by deceitful recruiters and forced by inadequate schooling and a Republican economy into enlisting just to put bread on the table. They are used and abused by the white man who makes minorities serve disproportionately. They are hapless stand-ins for rich, white Republican elitists who won’t serve in the wars they start, so we need a draft to force unwilling and less motivated recruits to serve in our military and protest wars they don’t want to fight. They are kids who don’t know better and children who are being thrown to the wolves. They are sacrificial lambs who are traumatized, maimed and killed in immoral and futile wars, their lives wasted and their service meaningless. They are well-intended but misguided souls who don’t yet realize “(Republican) War is Not the Answer.”
And, then, we’ve also heard Dems say: Our soldiers are war criminals who attack innocent civilians and principled insurgents fighting for home and belief. They are racist natural-born killers who enjoy the sanctioned aggression and indiscriminate slaughter. They are Christofascist-oppressors who are on a Crusade against Muslims. They are jingoistic gung-ho rednecks who are ignorant American chauvinists. They are gun nuts and sadistic pervs who enjoy torturing helpless captives. They are mercenaries who wage war for personal profit. They are willing hired guns for Halliburton, big oil, the defense industry, Republicans and Jews. They are military careerists who need a war under their belt for advancement.
Morale-busting doesn't begin to describe most Democrats' "support" for our troops.
The following hissed in response by: Big D
Meanwhile in the real world, the surge appears to be working, and Congress has a slew of budget bills that need a' passing.
Whata buncha clowns.
Listen, why don't they just pass a resolution declaring the war has been won, and requiring that the troops return home? Oh right. They're Democrats. That means every shortcut, legal, illegal, immoral, is fine, since they have already decided what is best for the country.
The following hissed in response by: james
Dafyyd and Charlotte,
I wholeheartedly concur regarding those damned-demon Dhimmicrats who are making my job at Defense into an exercise of dealing with the enemy without having to deploy. Even the KSA and Pakistan are considered to be more “frenemy” than our own Dem defeatists. Maybe we need a Constitutional rewrite whereby the (imperfect) Republicans administer military, foreign and economic policy, and the Democrats are put in charge of community gardening and Congressional federal building light bulb policy--?
Dig your alliteration and analysis, D! And thanks for spelling out how the Democrats talk about our troops, Charlotte. None of this can be said enough.
The following hissed in response by: MarkD
Rather than show us what they plan to do, why don't they, I don't know, actually do something. I thought that was the whole point of being the majority.
I get queasy when I listen to the folks who cut the size of the military complain that it's overstretched. The world's greatest collection of fakes, poseurs, and bloviators strikes again.
Term limits, and no one who has served in the Senate shall ever be president.
The following hissed in response by: charlotte
Remember when respected liberal Walter Cronkite told America in '68 that our war in ‘Nam was a mistake and that we were losing?
"We should have gotten out a long time ago. This is a mistake, this entire war there, it's a disaster. And the earlier we get out the better," Cronkite said. "It's a terrible disaster. Look at the loss of lives of our young Americans there and those who have been maimed for life, for what purpose? No purpose we can define."
”What's more,” he says, “America will pay a future price for going into…
Some things never change, even post 9-11. From an interview last Friday.
The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist
Such will never understand even the basic Dualistic concepts of 'Desperation', until they watch "their wives and daughters" and/or "the most desirable of their women" being placed into Burkas...watching such whilst a knife is against their own throats threatening with certainty their pending own beheading.
If that sounded a tad harsh, then stop reading now, count to ten...you know...as in:
Basically, just look at the Liberals, Dems, Leftists, etc. right now. They want one choice...their choice, whilst their flesh resides in the DUALISTIC world of Mother Nature. How does one discuss "Black and White", "War and Peace", or even the Ice Ages with such, when they don't even have a clue as to what flesh's Duality is about?!?
Forget about discussing the concept of Non-Duality with such since such's dictionaries don't list such...so to speak.
Non-Duality: Simply not two.
The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at February 28, 2007 8:29 PM
The following hissed in response by: DaveR
The United States is currently hamstrung between a political party that stands to lose if the country wins, and a mass media that sees itself as their champion and ally.
Most of the citizens of the United States do not buy into this, but they have no way to even express their anger. The polls are run to hide the real opinions of the US electorate, and the false information generated is blared at us as if we were being tortured with loud music and deprived of sleep.
How can there be free elections when the MSM assasinates one party's candidates over any imperfection, while giving their party absolute immunity from any misbehavior, no matter how egregious.
Example: the prosecution of Libby as a felon for political agressiveness of the wrong persuasion, as contrasted to a wrist-slap for Berger for espionage and national security breaches of the correct pursuasion.
Win elections? How, when it can be made illegal for a Republican politician to call a lie a lie?! How, when one side of the political spectrum has gained control over reality, and it doesn't even have to try to appear to play fairly - it owns the referees!
Democracy in the United States has been totally hijacked... this is a reality already, not a risk factor for the future.
This situation where elites hold the nation hostage is going to have to change, or there is going to be very bad trouble about it. We must remove the elites of the MSM from the defacto ownership of the Democratic party, and that party's ability to take and hold power through absolute control of media coverage over any issue, and absolute protection from exposure on any issue.
I hope it happens soon, because the crooks who have gamed the system know nothing, and care nothing, about the threats we face in the real world. If they are allowed to prosper, while they are enjoying their ill-gotten rewards they will probably manage to get us all killed.
The following hissed in response by: Bostonian
I agree that we live in crazy times, but the voters still have a say and they're not all dummies.
Even if the press lies to us and even if Democrats say whatever sounds good at the time, voters have other sources of information. Among these I count common sense and history. The Left believes in a human nature that is not possible, and a solid majority of voters realize this. The Left has airbrushed parts of history, but voters remember. And we have had a long time to see the impact of the Left's programs. Diehards think we just "need to try harder," but a less partisan observer would conclude that these programs are never going to work. And I think the pseudo-religious nature of today's Leftism is emerging more clearly--and that is a big turnoff.
The mid-term elections were scary, I will concur. But they were not any kind of landslide for the "progressives."
The fact is, I believe, that the country is indeed divided closely about the war and will be so for some time.
That said, I wish I were reading all this in a history book some fifty years in the future.
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
I think you're correct that there is a problem, and you have a pretty good handle on what it is and what needs to be done about it.
But I must say, I believe you've wildly exaggerated the extent of the problem. You make it sound as if Republicans can never win elections because they're all rigged, which is facially absurd.
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at March 1, 2007 5:21 PM
The following hissed in response by: DaveR
Thanks for thinking, not yelling, folks. That said, I believe that you underestimate the problem, and the reason is that we too have been conditioned to think of ourselves as marginal. I am not a nut - I am saying that if I look around me disapssionately, I see all kinds of very normal people who have been brainwashed into thinking that the leadership of this country is criminal, that elections are rigged by giant corporations, that the military is where misanthrops go to have fun torturing people, and on and on.
This is not as small a problem as we would like to believe it is. It is eating out the soul of our country, and this disease is being purposefully spread to our kids every day at school. And it is addictive - my wife has become a total moonbat because it lets her use her emotions instead of her head, and get validation from most people for it.
I have a neighbor who is a project manager for a very large company that has a reputation for hard-headedness. He believes that raising the minimum wage is a priority because of all the CEOs that make obscene salaries. Yes. This person manages millions of dollars better than I manage my lunch money, but he is convinced not only of this, but all the crazy stuff above. Laffer curve? He has never heard of it, and when I mentioned the concept he rolled his eyes and asked me who invented it - Groucho Marx?
To wrap up this rant, I think we are already screwed, and already mostly conditioned to accept that the lefty liberals are our betters, and we should just try to get along in their world.
And it IS their world: it feels like Christmas Eve at the nuthouse, I am on shift duty and every other staff member called in sick.
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved