Sweet Baby Jesus; Congress develops a backbone and actually manages to make the word "no" slip through their lips and the opposition acts like it's the Seventh Sign or something. Don't they know we still have a democracy in this country?
Well, OK; maybe they don't. All the more reason for them to use our soldier as political human shields.
Time to rain on their parade...
I WONDER WHAT COLOR THE SKY IS IN HIS WORLD...
Mario Loyola of the National Review pulls this talking point from the dark crevices of his anus:
The Democrats have thrown down the gauntlet. They are insisting on a deadline for withdrawal, and backing it up with a threat to cut off funding for the troops. Pundits predict that the Democrats will back down sooner or later, because they would never cut off funding in the middle of a war. But pessimism in the electoral center — which gave the Democrats control of Congress in the midterm elections — is starting to give them an incentive to precipitate America’s defeat in Iraq. The Democrats might not be bluffing about the funding.
Whoa. Who knew? I always thought Democrats wanted to redeploy our troops. And give them proper gear. And make sure they have good health benefits. And make sure that they are in good mental and physical health when they reach the battlefield. But obviously, according to Loyola, Democrats want to bring the troops home so they can hide under the bed.
Cause we're defeatists. And there's a good chunk of us who feel this way, apparently.
Loyola goes on:
Both parts of the Democratic base — now a large electoral majority — are unified in their gloom about our prospects in Iraq. Opinion polls are all over the place when it comes to withdrawal deadlines and funding for the troops. But virtually all of those who voted for the Democrats in the last elections think that we are losing in Iraq. And as long as those voters continue to think we are losing, the Democrats will keep their majority — and will almost certainly gain the White House in ’08.
This has created a fairly difficult conflict of interest for leading Democrats. Defeat in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States — and many of them know it. But if they want to maintain their political majority, the Democrats must stick to the position that the U.S. has been defeated — whatever the mix of good and bad news; whatever the setbacks to the insurgency; whatever the progress of the central government in Baghdad; and whatever the successes of Bush’s troop "surge." They have to spin the news as hard and fast in the direction of inevitable U.S. defeat as Republicans have to spin it in the direction of possible U.S. victory. The Democrats are "invested in defeat," as Rush Limbaugh says, just as heavily as the president is invested in victory.
So we're big fat losers. Gotcha. And we want everyone to feel our loser pain.
Um...how about..."No?"
How about: "Both parties have different ideas what consitutes a 'win' but the President is a stubborn, insecure person who would rather let his daughters date the Wu-Tang Clan than listen to, or compromise with, Democrats?"
Yeah, I like that assessment better...and I have reasons for feeling this way.
BUSH DOESN'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT'S GOING ON IN IRAQ...
First, there's the story of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and the Iraq makeover. Long story = short: Sistani wants no part of the plan that gets the Sunnis more involved in the new government. As a result, "The Sunnis no longer have any incentive to make a deal. The only place where they think they might make gains is on the battlefield (I believe they are also sorely mistaken in that belief). So it's on. Iraq no longer exists."
So I guess my point is: Democrats don't want to "lose" Iraq; it's that Loyola's Iraq is not part of our reality. You can't lose something if you never really had it to begin with. And that, as stated pretty much everywhere, is Bush's fault.
BUSH DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE LEGISLATION
Second, Bush has a horrible tendency to boil everything down into ultra-simplistic, black-and-white terms. This is good if you are, say, a coach or maybe even a motivational speaker, but not a for a president. And not in an age when people can do their own research from home.
During the second day of his Mini-Hissy-Fit Tour, Bush put together this string of sentences:
Soon Congress will return from its break. I urge them to work on legislation to fund our troops, but that does not tell our military how to conduct war and sets an artificial timetable for withdrawal. The enemy does not measure the conflict in Iraq in terms of timetables. They plan to fight us, and we've got to fight them, alongside the Iraqis. A strategy that encourages this enemy to wait us out is dangerous -- it's dangerous for our troops, it's dangerous for our country's security. And it's not going to become the law.
If Bush had bothered to read the entire piece of legislation, as opposed to just the parts he doesn't like or could use to charge up his base, he would learn that:
The Senate bill does take out the cleaver. No later than 120 days after the bill's enactment, the president "shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq," with "the goal of redeploying" all combat troops by March 31, 2008.
Even so, there are some loopholes. First, there are those two words I've italicized above: The March 2008 deadline is put forth as not the requirement but rather "the goal."
Second, the bill allows "a limited number" of combat forces to stay "that are essential for the following purposes: (A) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure. (B) Training and equipping Iraqi forces. (C) Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations."
Force-protection, infrastructure, training, counterterrorism—these missions could justify keeping at least 50,000 American troops in Iraq for a long, long time.
The clear intent of this provision—and this is true in the House bill as well—is not so much to end the Iraq war but to return to the course that U.S. commanders were taking late last year, before Bush ordered the "surge" in force levels and shifted to a more active counterinsurgency plan (emphasis mine).
Of course, Bush has always found it easier to jump to conclusions rather than doing a little reading and research.
BUSH DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE ENEMY
So who, or what, is the enemy...besides dangerous? Well, backing up serveral paragraphs we find out:
In the long-term, we must remember that freedom is universal, and the best way to defeat an ideology -- and make no mistake about it, these extremists believe things -- for example, they don't believe you can worship freely; they don't believe you should speak your mind; they don't believe in dissent; they don't believe in human rights. We believe in the right for people to worship. We believe in the dignity of each human being. Our ideology is based on the universality of liberty. Their dark ideology is based upon hatred. And the way to defeat -- ultimately defeat those who would do harm to America is give people a chance to live in a free society.
By his description, he's identified al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein (and with his death, his sympathizers). Problem is, it's hard to argue that all of these factions are or have ever been a unified force. In fact, who the "enemy" is depends on the situation.
When he's using his "they'll follow us" mantra, he's obviously not talking about Iraqi insurgents. Saddam wasn't behind 9-11. The Taliban, while connected to al-Qaeda via bin Laden, operates primarily in Afghanistan. As for Al-Qaeda: they have been identified as being behind 9-11 and July 2005 London bombings but not the 2004 Madrid bombings (even though some reports say the London and Madrid bombings have similarities). But that hardly matters because Bush doesn't refer to them by name as often as he used to. At every instance, he lumps together all of these groups when he says "the enemy." His ignorance of their differences partially explains why Iraq is going so badly: if the Commander In Chief doesn't understand who it is we're fighting, how can the people he's sending to battle make that determination?
So let me ask the the Loyolas of the nation a question: If you have a president who doesn't understand what's going on in the country he's decided to occupy, who doesn't understand the legislation being presented to him, and isn't even clear on who we're actually fighting in said Occupied Country, just who has "invested in defeat" here? Doesn't preparation, analysis and feedback matter in such matters? Or is it just something so appealing about the "ram-your-head-into-the-wall-until-it-crumbles" strategy that I'm not getting?
Maybe these people are just bidding their time, waiting for a Democrat to get in the White house, so eight months later they can scream "We need to get outta there!"
But I say they're the real defeatists. They oppose the democratic right to have, and share a different opinion. We've been doing it their way for six years, but not anymore.
Bush likes to say that history will judge him and his action. Well, I think the same goes for Pelosi, Reid and others who want this mess to end, and want to do some real things that will make us safe.
IN CLOSING: CRY ME A RIVER
For your viewing/reading pleasure (and also to show that this is really nothing new) some past Bush hissy fits:
Keith Olbermann discusses Bush's infamous "It's unacceptable to think" comments.
"I'm the decider."
A mini-hissy fit, but still potent: "Bring 'em on."
Then there's this story, where he called the inclusion of a timeline "disastrous" which he decided to slip in a little rant whilst talking to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
There are more, I'm sure. But let me just close with a comment I posted on another thread a few days back:
The difference between the Dems and the Repubs on this is displayed beautifully by Murtha: Democrats are listening to the troops, and the Republicans are listening to the President. One group is relaying a first-hand account of what's going on, another is repeating taaking points from thie party leader.
Bush isn't listening to the soldiers. He's doing what he wants to with them, and then telling us that we have to support them. The Democrats are listening to the troops and their families and are telling us "this is what they're asking for."
Big Freakin' Difference.