Monday, April 24, 2006

Whose Lie Is It Anyway?

Last Thursday it was Senator Hairplugs' turn in the Bush defamation rotation, and he certainly had his stuff with him:

Senator Joe Biden, D-DE, says President Bush has no credibility among leaders of foreign nations when it comes to discussions of foreign policy.

Biden, appearing on MSNBC’s Imus in the Morning show, said Bush lost credibility when weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq and his reluctance to apologize for "coming clean on Iraq” is hurting the nation’s reputation abroad.

"The President has yet to be straight with the American people on what the deal in Iraq is,” Biden said. "All the way back since Abu Ghraib, the President has yet to be straight about the mistakes he has made ... He has no credibility. No one believes the President of the United States on matters of foreign policy.”

Actually, there are hundreds of millions of people who believe the President of the United States on matters of foreign policy, and some of them are actually foreign leaders. It's just that Slow Joe and his ilk are still trying to sabotage the credibility he earned between 9/11 and the liberation of Iraq three full years later. As is always the case with liberals, they never admit defeat when they lose elections. For them 2004 settled nothing, and so they continue flogging away at the same discredited canards in the blind faith that doing so long enough will finally convince the public to side with them. That Albert Einstein once defined that as insanity apparently doesn't phase them at all.

Another way to look at it is that they are still sore that Bush won't take their day-glo obvious bait and jump through their hoops, which is what the stale, tiresome "admit his mistakes/come clean" mantra means. Not much given to subtlety, the Delaware blowhard confirmed it with another demand that Don Rumsfeld be canned. Biden's not real big on originality, either.

The irony is that if he and his fellow-travelers would change one consonant - exchanging an "n" for a "q" - he'd actually be making some sense. It's Bush's refusal to apply the doctrine that bears his name to Iran and its Hitlerian, nuke-obsessed frontman that is bleeding his foreign policy credibility, not the reconstruction going on next door, which bears not the slightest resemblance to left-wing annihilation fantasies. Indeed, the Iraqi democratic process just passed another milestone:

The selection of a compromise prime minister in Iraq [Jawad al-Maliki] is a major victory for that country’s fledgling political class, and for the Bush Administration. Purveyors of doom on Iraq now have some explaining to do: If the country is in the midst of a full-scale civil war fatal to our project there, how is it that elected representatives of the major factions were able to sit down and hammer out an agreement on the top positions in a national unity government? Iraq pessimists act like they have a special immunity from ever having to recalibrate their view of the conflict, as they instead move on to the latest iteration of their metaphysical despair.

Libs act like that because they do have a "special immunity," at least as far as the Extreme Media is concerned. The thing is, the Bushies never challenge them either, apparently permanently content to serve as Democrat punching bags until Dubya's second term expires. But either way it wouldn't change Donk talking points because for them expressing the same wish incessantly makes it so. They want the President politically crippled in time of war; they want our enemies to win in Iraq; they want their own country to be defeated in the GWOT because finally engaging this enemy is what "legitimized" the Bush presidency and destroyed their own foreign policy credibility, and political viability along with it. It doesn't matter to them if gas soars past a hundred bucks a barrel, or Israel is destroyed, or the "insurgency" we've seen in Iraq falls upon American cities. They'd just blame it all on Bush and his "warmongering" that "provoked" the Islamist onslaught that they themselves encouraged through the stubborn, militant pacifism they would even then proclaim as the solution to yet another self-inflicted crisis.

Don't believe me? Biden himself argued against military action, citing the "Iran won't have a nuke for another decade" BS. And then there was this piece of unadulterated idiocy from Dirty Harry:

The Bush Administration is relying too heavily on other countries in the international effort to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, according to Senator Harry Reid.

Reid, D-NV, said the Administration should be taking the lead, but instead is relying on Germany, France and Great Britain to convince Iran to end its uranium enrichment program.

"It is hard to comprehend," Reid said Tuesday in Reno. "We should be involved at trying to arrive at a diplomatic solution. ... Not just these three countries."
Leaving aside the gaping contradiction with the one-time Dem criticism of Dubya's one-time "unilateralism" and the need to "rebuild alliances" with our "European allies" (i.e. that very same France and Germany whose numbnut diplomats spent the past several years getting repeatedly humiliated by the mullahs), TKS's Jim Geraghty makes a very inciteful point: Since the United States does not have diplomatic relations with Iran (that whole embassy-storming, hostage-taking thing, you know), Reid's dumbass dhimmizing would require us to restablish them. Which would be to reward beyond the mullahgarchy's wildest imaginings (and ol' Adolph Ahmedinejad can imagine a whooooooole lot) their policy of lying, double-dealing, nuclear brinksmanship, genocidal threats, subversion, and that little matter of the war they declared on us twenty-seven years ago by seizing sovereign U.S. territory (which is what an embassy is) and taking fifty-three American nationals prisoner. This is precisely the kind of warped thinking that gave us the 9/11 attacks and would bring on a helluva lot worse if it were ever re-implemented.

Do seditious petaQs like Biden want to see Los Angeles nerve-gassed or Chicago nuked or Atlanta irradiated? Do they want to see ourselves and our "allies" subjected to nuclear blackmail that would devastate the global economy? Some would say they're too stupid to see that that would be the inevitable outcome of their addled polyanism; others would condemn them as traitors and be done with it. For my part, I don't think they give a damn one way or the other. They simply want their power back. If the "realm" has to be poisoned, figuratively and literally, to get it, and if their rule is subject to Islamist overlords and sharia law, so be it - just so George W. Bush and the Republican Party are vanquished.

If gloryhogs like Biden wanted to maximize their attention, they wouldn't bother with viewerless cable news shows - instead they would release audiotapes every few months crammed full of their obligatory, broken-record Bush derangements. They sound enough like bin Laden anyway that it would be a handy piggy-back vehicle for "getting their message out," and I'm sure their co-belligerant wouldn't mind.

Of course unlike the DisLoyal Opposition, even bin Laden makes a token attempt to keep his material updated. But what could he do about it - sue the DNC for gimmick infringement? Or perhaps blow up their 2008 convention in the same way that Count von Stauffenberg blew up Hitler's "wolf's lair" - ensuring that Hillary will survive and ride the wave of public sympathy and indignation to the White House, from where victory will be handed to Iran and Syria and al Qaeda be default.

Wonder what Senator Hairplugs would have to say about that. Okay, not really.