March 09, 2007
Gotta Love Those Democrats
If it wasn't for the pathos of it all, I would be laughing at the Democrats over their tussle with what to do about Iraq. The Senior other Senator from New York (the one that is not running for President) Chuck "Dagger In The Heart" Schumer (read "Joke and Dagger Dept.--II here) noted:
"We are keeping faith with the voters asked for in November 2006..."and whats more, he really believes it. The same article notes that the
But, I digress. The Democrats are unable to corral their "Blue Dog" members into agreement that the war must come to a halt:
Senate and House Democrats yesterday announced competing legislation that for the first time would set deadlines to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq -- by fall 2008 -- provoking a veto threat from the White House.So, it would seem that, at least from Pelosi's point of view that there is nothing wrong with going to war against the Islamofascists, just do it in Afghanistan and not Iraq.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said her chamber's measure, which accelerates the timetable for a pullout if the administration fails to certify that Iraq has met certain benchmarks for progress, will be attached to the nearly $100 billion in supplemental spending that President Bush is seeking this year for fighting in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
"Our bill calls for the redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq so that we can focus more fully on the real war on terror, which is in Afghanistan," the California Democrat said.
What exactly does Speaker Pelosi think will happen then? That, sending all our troops to Afghanistan will cause Al Qaeda to throw up their hands and surrender? Cause an end to the sectarian violence in Iraq which is of course, supported by both Iran and Syria? Does she really think that the war against Islamofascism is ONLY about a ragtag bunch of thugs named Al Qaeda, and if so, that none of her fellow Democrats have any other ideas about this global war?
Kimberly Strassel has more on Pelosi's struggle with her "Blue Dogs."
The meltdown among House Democrats over Iraq is rightly being
described as the first big test of Nancy Pelosi's leadership. It's
also an early example of just how much political damage the antiwar
left is capable of inflicting on their new speaker.
Ms. Pelosi has been backed into a tight corner over President Bush's
$100 billion request for war funding. Hoping to quell a revolt from
a liberal bloc that wants out of Iraq, pronto, the speaker unveiled
a new, new plan yesterday that includes a timetable for withdrawal--
to begin as early as July. Ms. Pelosi needs to win this vote, the
first real showdown over Iraq. But it's becoming increasingly clear
she can do that only by sacrificing her moderate wing, which opposes
her plan and could pay heavily for it in next year's election.
The Democrats don't have the faintest idea as to how to prosecute the war and the evidence is their multi-pronged attack on an unpopular war in Iraq. The Democrats must also understand that they were elected because of their opposition to the war, but the only ideas they have about it are how to cut and run and to keep from getting blamed when that falls apart as it will. Yeppers, with the Democrats in power, it's looking more and more like the "ending" in Vietnam.
I'm hoping that when the American People see how truly faithless these Democrats are, that they will either put some more "Blue Dog" Democrats in office or some real conservative Republicans (as opposed to the big government, big spending, Republicans there now).
Posted by GM Roper at March 9, 2007 08:25 AM | TrackBackI'm hoping that when the American People see how truly faithless these Democrats are, that they will either put some more "Blue Dog" Democrats in office or some real conservative Republicans (as opposed to the big government, big spending, Republicans there now).---GMR
Well I'm hoping for a massive influx of filthy lucre so that I can go completely off the rails, but I fear I like you am doomed to be disappointed.
If the 'American People' were as 'insightful' as you hope, they would have seen the Democrats for what they are a LONG,LONG, TIME AGO .
The Democrats are indeed disgracefully ignorant ,but this is Bush's fault. Period.
He gets all the kudos possible for his refusal to weaken under stress, but he gets nothing but brickbats for fighting a 'kinder/gentler' WAR. It is the constant attrition with no 'meaningful' sense of 'progress' that has brought the Useless Party to this position in History.
Everyone can stand the 'attrition', but the sense of 'futility' attached to it is the problem. The 'Iraqi Leadership' should have been put on notice a year ago(before the Election) that they had a very limited time to get their act together. Not to be perfect---just to get their act together.
Frankly the Iraqis are just about out of 'reasons' and 'excuses' why they can't, or won't get the job done. When all is said and done, a hell-hole in Iraq is BAD for the US, but is a never-ending disaster for Iraq. In a very real sense, it is appropriate to now DEMAND that Iraqis step up.
I just wish that it was not the Perfidious Party doing the demanding. Bush should have done this. And he did not. And because he did not, he left a void where a policy should have been.
So now unhappily, because nature abhors a vacuum, someone else is.
What a mess.
Posted by dougf at March 9, 2007 12:04 PM
Doug, can't disagree with anything you said. Sadly!
Posted by GM at March 9, 2007 03:22 PM
The Dems have to effect some kind of "fix." The 2008 elections are coming.
GWB really did screw up with the democratization of Iraq. Of course, cut 'n run is going to be a terrible mistake, but I expect that this Congress will manage to force that withdrawal--one way or the other.
Posted by Always On Watch at March 10, 2007 09:27 AM
OK Guy, I know that you personally "support "the troops, but why do you continue to claim that the Conservative Republicans do? Let's see what their support amounts to.
1. A unnecessary War.
2. send reserve troops that are not fully trained
3. Fail to supply the necessary armor for personelle
or vehicles
3. Fail to provide continuing medical care for the troops that have served and have been wounded.
4. Have no clue as to how to get this mess cleaned up.
5. Since they have no plan or ideas that are new, denigrate anyone that tries to provide a new perspective.
What am I missing? Oh, yes, pay them as little as possible, taking full advantage of the idealism that those young folk have.
Posted by James S Melbert at March 10, 2007 08:02 PM
The 'main' reason why I still think that Iraq 'might 'be saved is that to believe otherwise would be to accept that posts such as Mr. Melbert's actually had some connection to 'reality'. For a supposedly reality-based community , there is always a distinct lack of 'realism' in their outpourings.
Mr Melbert -- not that your tirade warrants it but still, just to keep in practise .
1. That is an 'opinion', not a factoid. Facts only,sir. facts only. History not you will decide the issue of 'need'. This is still very much an 'open' question on many levels.
2. That is at best a 'partial' truth, and considering the 'reality 'of the World as it ALWAYS has been, is probably unavoidable. No-one can ever be FULLY trained for a unique combat situation. EVER. The troops sent are hardly in the 'cannon-fodder' category as you dishonestly attempt to imply.
3. That is a complete wilful distortion of the issues referenced, and attributes intent to a developing situation. When the 'new 'requirements' were known they were addressed as quickly as possible by a bureaucratic system. 20-20 hindsight seems to be what certain types are most proficient at. Must make for an absolutely perfect track record. Enviable.
4. A Lie or at best an invalid extrapolation from the usual bureaucratic snafus that haunt any system. My understanding is that the VA has been 'less than spectacular' for decades. It is not tolerable or justifiable, but it is not unique to this situation, and is NOT a political football. Well, I gather, to you it clearly is merely a talking point, which is repugnant in itself. You again use a 'unique ' fact to ascribe a general motivation and purpose. This is intellectually and morally dishonest on a vast scale.
5. This is indeed a 'difficult' situation, but like any conflict there is only Winning and Losing. Any counter-insurgency takes time to whittle down to manageable size. Especially one fought by hand-wringing, 'compassionate' ROE. Had the dogs been let loose a year ago, the situation might not be what you see today. But complex thought appears to be one of your areas of weakness, so let's just 'give' you this point and move-on, so to speak.
6. Denigating 'other' ideas is not a technique used because 'we' don't have any plans. It just is the 'natural' human response to a 'certain' type of ' new perspective'. Yours to take a prime example of the 'type'. Simplistic, propagandistic, and overtly tendentious, 'arguments tend to bring forth a rather 'denigating' response. It's just the nature of the beast.
7. "What am I missing? Oh, yes, pay them as little as possible, taking full advantage of the idealism that those young folk have." This 'point' is just contemptible on its face. Period. As was said in another post on another site on another topic--- Have you no shame, sir? have you no shame ?
I think if guys like you are on the 'other 'side, that I must still be doing 'something 'right, even if I can't precisely put my finger on exactly what it might be.
So thanks for that small service, at least.
Posted by dougf at March 10, 2007 11:24 PM
I noticed that James Melbert of the "reality based community" had two number three's in his numerically listed points. Whose reality is that?
I have little to add to dougf's response, especially on the last point about taking advantage of youthful idealism. I think James would want to withdraw that last point if he thought about it. Young men join the military for reasons other than to look spiffy in a uniform. They decided to join our military to make a real difference for America and to protect our nation. James must think that our military should be like the Peace Corps, where they work for no salary to "make a real difference" for themselves and other countries.
Posted by Woody at March 11, 2007 08:40 AM
"They decided to join our military to make a real difference for America and to protect our nation."
OK, you just agreed with my point that these kids are idealistic. Now Dougf, tell me when you were in a VA hospital? I was in one in Tuscaloosa back in 1944, and it was terrible. You know why? The Democratic Congress didn't want to allocate money to the Veterans Administration. Compare that time with today. Except change the Congress to Republican, but otherwise do everything possible to hide the human side of war. Don't you dare deny that this administration has taken control of the information sources and blocked the media from real information. The political lessons of Viet Nam were well learned by the people now in charge. No 1. Don't allow he public to know how badly we have screwed up. Keep telling our supporters that there is a light at the end of the Tunnel.
I would love to know what you have printed on the inside of your blinders.
Posted by James S Melbert at March 11, 2007 10:06 AM
I just saw a bumper sticker that gave me an insight to the words you have printed on your blinders.
It said, "Support President Bush and the Troops"
How Sad!!
Posted by James S Melbert at March 11, 2007 10:11 AM
Me: "They decided to join our military to make a real difference for America and to protect our nation."
James: OK, you just agreed with my point that these kids are idealistic.
Me: No. Our military does make a difference. Check these maps of military spending vs. war and death.
Posted by Woody at March 11, 2007 10:57 AM
"I just saw a bumper sticker that gave me an insight to the words you have printed on your blinders.
It said, "Support President Bush and the Troops" JSM
Ummm, did you read my FIRST comment on this thread ? Did it appear to you that I was blindly 'supporting' Bush ?
You know, James, the object of life is to 'learn' from experiences and 'external 'reality. Not to simply parrot something that someone else might have said. Repeat drivel ad infinitum I might add, does not magically make it non-drivel. It just makes it more annoying drivel. Your initial comment was filled with questionable 'truths', logical fallacies, malicious attribution of motives, and conclusions unsupported by the facts.
Instead of addressing these very real issues, you launch ad hominem attacks on your accusers. Ironic when you consider your previous point #5(or #6 in REAL world as Woody enumerated). Now don't get me wrong James ( I may call you James, may I not, since we are getting along so famously), I personally have no problem with ad hominem argumentation. If I can discredit an 'alternative viewpoint' by demonstrating that the holder of same viewpoint is a complete and utter 'tool', count me in. I figure the 'tool 'deserves' the abuse,and a win is a win as they say.
But ad hominem should not be the SOLE resource you bring to the table. It should be merely the icing on the 'logical' cake. Something to be trotted out when the 'opponent' is already under heavy incoming 'logical fire'.
With all due respect, I think you are completely by-passing the 'logic' stage, and relying too much on the 'abuse' stage. It' not really working for you, I might add. Just FYI in the spirit of trying to help out. No thanks required on your part. It's my charitable contribution for the quarter.
ps--- If you had a 'modicum of class' you might have paid a little more attention to Woody's point about the 'idealism' of the troops. He agreed with me that your comments on that subject were 'contemptible',and suggested that on sober second thought you might want to retract them. I knew he was doing the intellectual equivalent of 'pissing up a rope' when he broached that thought about your 'motivations' , but it is still sad to see you proceed to confirm my beliefs so quickly.
Just to help you out (my but this process is tedious, is it not) ---
Your comments on the troops made them out to be:
A.Nothing but 'mis-informed' and 'useful' pawns. 'Idealistic' (and I think you use this is a less complimentary sense than I might) but STUPID and GULLIBLE is what you really said. Woody tried to correct you but clearly he failed on a rather fundamental level. Pity.
B. You attribute to the evil Bushitler and his fawning minions an intent to consciously exploit these 'idealists' in their WARS, while deliberately underpaying them for their service. Not paying them less than they might because of the nature of the military life, but consciously exploiting them because they are as you postulated 'idealistic' (ie. STUPID/ GULLIBLE.)
"Oh, yes, pay them as little as possible, taking full advantage of the idealism that those young folk have."
That piece of objectionable and morally perverse drivel speaks clearly for itself, James. It also speaks VERY clearly about YOU. That is the reason Woody suggested that, "James would want to withdraw that last point if he thought about it". He was looking out for your welfare. Giving the benefit of the doubt.
Obviously it was as you have now demonstrated, a 'fool's errand'. That unfortunate result reflects not at all badly upon Woody who tried to be 'decent', but it does reflect even more poorly on you.
As you say----How Sad.
Posted by dougf at March 11, 2007 11:07 AM
Now that dougf and Woody have written several hundred words trying to refute my earlier statements, I see that Woody has actually found an error in my typing. I had two 3's. Wow! Good for you Woody. And now I fully expect to have you and dougf tell me that the Democrats are responsible for the fiascos of Walter Reed Hospital.
I stand by the statement that we treat our enlisted soldiers shamefully. We expect them to live on a poverty income, We even expect their families to provide continuing convelescent care. Perhaps you dougf think that that is a good thing, because it allows the administration to reduce cost.
I think you two are really naive about the reason most young men enlist. I suppose you may be imbued with the esprit of the "Officer Corps", but a young rookie is there because his other choices are limited. OK, hold on, I know that many enlist because they want to be soldiers. They have grown up on the movies, TV, and tales of glory and heroism. And like most young men they want that chance to be a hero. Patriotism? whats that? Bonus money? Ah! now you're talking. Come on fella's, get real.
Your response to the sending of partially trained troops was a perfect Cheneyism.
"That is at best a 'partial' truth, and considering the 'reality 'of the World as it ALWAYS has been, is probably unavoidable. No-one can ever be FULLY trained for a unique combat situation. EVER. The troops sent are hardly in the 'cannon-fodder' category as you dishonestly attempt to imply."
What's a partial truth? And training should always include the mastery of the weapon of the soldier. When reservists are sent to Iraq without ever having fired a rifle, do you call that unavoidable? Also "cannon fodder" is a staple of any war, battle, skirmish that may be happening. WWI & WWII were prime examples of throwing "cannon fodder" into the breach.
Just for once, drop your erudition and evasion and face the fact that is staring you in the face. No amount of wishful thinking by any hawkish republican is going to stop this war. No amount of phony "support the troops" is going to help a single GI.
Posted by James S Melbert at March 11, 2007 03:27 PM
James, if you believe what you write, then you have a moral duty to stand in front of military recruiting offices and block young men trying to enlist.
Posted by Woody at March 11, 2007 03:54 PM
Woody, if I did that, and it would be a good thing, the defenders of the Patriot Act would be on me like a duck on a june bug. Thanks for the suggestion, but I'll pass.
Did you catch the editorial this evening on 60 minutes? Andy Rooney nailed another one of the problems with this war.
I think you probably do not watch 60 minutes, since that is a liberal, leftist media thing. But you should.
And Oh yes. I do believe every word that I wrote in this exchange.
Posted by James S Melbert at March 11, 2007 09:03 PM
G.M., it's a good thing that you are in the mental health field. Give James some free sessions.
Posted by Woody at March 12, 2007 07:38 AM
Your suggestion Woody;
Me: No. Our military does make a difference. Check these maps of military spending vs. war and death.
I checked the maps. I don't have any thought that you will give a positive answer, but what the heck did they show? The US outspends the world on military. More people die in Africa from mass slaughter than any where else.
Where (how) do you infer that the US Gi makes a difference?
Posted by James S Melbert at March 12, 2007 05:08 PM
