Friday, March 23, 2007

Congress descends into farce, surrender, peanuts

Part of the problem with, you know, working all day is that I can't post until I get home at night. And, let's face it, this post will be read by tens (maybe dozens) of readers. But here goes:

The Democrats in Congress, always so sensitive about their patriotism, passed a nauseating piece of legislation today and embraced their lack of seriousness full-bore. There's no issue more important than supporting troops in the field and the nation deserved a debate on that question and that question alone. The vote in Congress should have been on the war; instead it turned into a laughing-stock of extra-Constitutional overreach, pork, peanuts and spinach subsidies. Here's the WashPost main editorial today on "Retreat and Butter":

The Democrats claim to have a mandate from voters to reverse the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. Yet the leadership is ready to piece together the votes necessary to force a fateful turn in the war by using tactics usually dedicated to highway bills or the Army Corps of Engineers budget. The legislation pays more heed to a handful of peanut farmers than to the 24 million Iraqis who are living through a maelstrom initiated by the United States, the outcome of which could shape the future of the Middle East for decades.
Austin Bay nails it:

The Democratic House leaders are a laughingstock of a shameful sort. They have dug two holes, a "pork" hole and a "defeat" hole. The "pork" hole reveals them to be another clatch of K Street bandits, haut couture of corruption replacing their electioneering "culture of corruption." Their "pro-defeat" statement will attract fleeting accolades, but over time it will earn them deserved shame.
Those principled anti-war Democrats flipped for Nancy Pelosi and voted for the doomed bill. The bribes probably didn't hurt but don't underestimate plain-ole BDS:

The fact is, the left in Congress are cowards - unprincipled, abject cowards. They talk a good game but when push comes to shove - when history calls and asks them to stand up for their principles - they run and hide under their beds like five year olds scared of the thunder.

And the hell of it is, they are going to point to passage of this bill as a "victory." It's a triumph of hate over principle - hardly a victory unless you consider it more important to stick a shiv into the President's gut to satisfy your own personal animus.
McQ sums it up:

So to the Democrats out there who support this nonsense, please keep the future guff about "principled opposition" to yourself. This bill has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with attempting to hurt Bush and his chances to succeed in Iraq. It's an irresponsible, unconscionable and, frankly nauseating attempt to avoid responsibility which will most likely end up getting troops in Iraq killed.

Congrats. You must be so proud.
This legislation will never get through the Senate so it will never see a well-deserved Presidential veto. But America should take a hard look at the political party that put shrimpers ahead of Iraqis and Bush-hatred above the troops.

Disgusting.

Extra - More from Don Surber and Powerline.

More - San Diego Union-Tribune: "Buying war-policy votes with pork is pathetic"

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

That noted captain of politics, "McQ," is crying about a House bill because he's suddenly fearful of troops getting killed. In 2007. He's also deeply troubled about politicians who "avoid responsibility." In 2007. You know, Democrats. They're very responsibility-averse, those ones.

The Democrats in Congress, always so sensitive about their patriotism, passed a nauseating piece of legislation today and embraced their lack of seriousness full-bore. There's no issue more important than supporting troops in the field and the nation deserved a debate on that question and that question alone.

Ah, the tattered "support the troops/root against victory" fairytale. Asked and answered, by Matt Taibbi (hardly a leftist's darling), in a 2006 column. I've inserted asterisks to protect tender readers:

Then there's this whole business of liberals who are accused of "rooting" for failure in Iraq. I'm sorry, but the next pundit who whips that one out should have his b*lls stuffed down his throat. You c**ksuckers beat the drum to send these kids to war, and then you turn around and accuse us of rooting for them to die? F**k you for even thinking that. We're Americans just like you. You don't have the right to get us into this mess and then turn around and call us traitors. Your credibility is long gone on this issue; shut up about us.

Beyond that, what you say doesn't even make any sense. For most of us, if we thought there was any chance this thing could work, we'd have been for it, or at least not so violently against it. Instead, our opposition to the war was based on our absolute conviction that it would end in disaster -- which it incidentally has. But according to (Joe) Klein, if we see a guy step off the top of the Empire State Building, we're supposed to root for him to nail the dismount. The whole issue is irrelevant and absurd. This is a catastrophe, not a baseball game. "Rooting" is a kid's word; grow the f**k up.


You're "nauseated" by financial gamesmanship on the war. McQ is "nauseated" by financial gamesmanship on the war. Before you continue your mutual nauseafest, let me express my sincere regret that both of you pricked your finger on the same enchanted spinning wheel in 2002, and only just woke up from your comas this week.

You're just getting an upset tummy because the GOP doesn't define the arguments anymore. ("I wanna see a vote on that question alone.") Because votes like this publicly smear the blood on the one political party that supports further war. And mostly because Democrats have stopped doing what Republicans want them to. Go ahead, veto the bill. Fight the subpoenas. Knock yourselves out. You don't want the war to go away, so good news! It won't! Primaries are in 10 months.

To review: spinach subsidies overtly attached to war legislation = unconscionable, pro-defeat, and deranged Bush-hatred. Patriot Act II powers silently attached without notice to omnibus security legislation = supporting troops in the field. Senator Stevens' Alaskan bridge attached to legislation that, ahem, funded the troops = serious, conscionable, and abject GOP heroism.

Best of all, this fundamentally symbolic vote is just the preamble for the *real* fun votes to come. In fact, when the history of this war is written, today's House vote will just be a comma.

Anonymous said...

Well, Eric, you have at least two readers here.

When the WaPo ( hardly my editorial favorite ) doesn't like this there is trouble brewing.

Freedom Shrimper, who has probably never seen a shrimp outside of the supermarket ( I've worked shrimpers out of Tarpon Springs and Biloxi ) quotes Matt as "hardly a Leftists darling".

Puleeze!

If the Democrats really 'supported the troops, just not the war' they would pass a funding bill and then pass all the BINDING resolutions they want about the continuing war effort.

JorgXMcKie said...

freedom shrimper just continues to prove that you don't have to think to post.

Among other things, he might have noticed that Repubs went after that idiot 'Bridge to Nowhere' before and just as strongly, if not more so, than Dems.

Also, as all Leftoids do, he attempts to change the subject and totally ignores any real reference to the flip-flop on the 'culture of corruption'. Evidently the Dems only complaint about corruption was that they weren't in charge. And how is Cold Cash Jefferson doing these days? I don't suppose he voted in favor of this, did he?

And finally, let me ask this: since the Dems in Congress 'support the troops' what will they do to support them when this bill doesn't pass and the troops can't be funded? Let them die in Iraq, or try to keep their promise and just cut off all funding and 'bring them home'? They got no guts.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Jorgxmckie, your worst fears will come horribly, horribly true. When this bill doesn't pass, the U.S. Army will instantly be bankrupt. And all the brave troops will have to buy their bullets on the Iraqi black market, and book their own flights home.

What will they do? What will they do? Maybe you could come up with some conceivable solution. After all, you're a very deep on-subject thinker, unlike those dirty "Leftoids."

Anonymous said...

"If the Democrats really 'supported the troops, just not the war' they would pass a funding bill and then pass all the BINDING resolutions they want about the continuing war effort."

Interestingly, Congressional opponents to the Mexican War (including Abraham Lincoln) handled themselves in just that manner. They didn't have the votes to stop the war, but they were very public and pointed in opposition in the press and on the floor of Congress. But they did vote with the majority to give the troops the necessary funds to do the job. Of course, those old Whigs and Democrats actually loved their country unlike the modern Democratic Party.