Escalation
I told you all yesterday, in so many words, that Senator and future Hillaryoid Vice President Barack Obama was talking out of his hat when he assured the nation that the Democrats would fold like a K-Mart deck chair on Iraq withdrawal timetables after President Bush's expected veto of the poison-pilled supplemental military spending bill for ongoing Middle East operations. His little act of attempted triangulation was blasted out of the proverbial water by his caucus leader, Dirty Harry Reid, who has now finally invoked the D-word:
Well, the game's afoot, it would seem. "Chicken," that is. And it would seem that Reid's playing it against himself:
{Chuckle} I don't know if Rush Limbaugh has copywrited the phrase, "See, I told you so," but gosh, it applies here, and in spades. And that's probably not the end of it. Having broached the defunding Rubicon, the Donks will now start reeling in the funding horizon until they're right along side the nutters, fever-swamp-dwellers, and NeoStalinists that make up their base. Hey, even that may not be enough; the Democrats might start passing foreign aid bills subsidizing al Qaeda operations and the Iranian nuclear weapons program, which is, by some optimistic reports, still two years from completion. All in profuse, obsequious, bootlicking penitance for George Bush's unpardonable sin of resisting the Islamic conquest of the planet for Allah. In Iraq, at least.
I don't agree that this would "destroy the Democrats on foreign policy and national security for a generation," because they spent the past five years destroying themselves on foreign policy and national security and still got back into power last November. But it could still cost Dirty Harry his narrow Senate majority, in the form of Joe Lieberman finally doing what he should have done years ago and picking up stakes and moving across the aisle, tipping the balance to 51-50 GOP with Dick Cheney's tye-breaking vote.
Yeah, it still sounds like a pipedream. How could Lieberman stay in the Donk caucus after the way his own party turned on him last fall? But he's generally been a man of his word (his kamikaze run with Al Gore in 2000 not withstanding), and he's made it clear that forcing an outright cut & run from Iraq would be his final straw.
Maybe Dirty Harry has a secret insurance policy up his sleeve. But even if the war against the war isn't successful in this Congress, total defeat in the form of President Hillary Rodham, is still only a matter of time.
Never has the Ledeenian catch phrase "Faster, please" been more intensively relevant.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid yesterday endorsed the Senate's toughest antiwar bill yet, a bid to cut off funding within a year, sending a clear signal to President Bush that the Iraq debate will continue in Congress regardless of whether he carries through on his veto threats.
Reid (D-NV) announced that he had teamed up with Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI), one of the Democrats' strongest war critics, on legislation to set a deadline of March 31, 2008, for completing the withdrawal of combat forces and ending most military spending in Iraq.
Reid's decision came as House and Senate Democrats were just starting to deliberate a compromise war spending bill. The package is likely to include language at least calling for troop withdrawals to begin, but the Feingold plan would go much further, essentially giving Bush a year to end most U.S. military activities before the money dries up.
Well, the game's afoot, it would seem. "Chicken," that is. And it would seem that Reid's playing it against himself:
Not only did Reid backtrack against Obama's statement, he backtracked against his own. On November 30th, just after the Democrats took control of Congress, he also assured Americans that the Democrats would not defund the troops in the middle of a war. He said this: "We're not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds." That sounded categorical at the time, and yet three months after taking the reins, Reid and the Democrats have started to threaten what they insisted they would not do.
{Chuckle} I don't know if Rush Limbaugh has copywrited the phrase, "See, I told you so," but gosh, it applies here, and in spades. And that's probably not the end of it. Having broached the defunding Rubicon, the Donks will now start reeling in the funding horizon until they're right along side the nutters, fever-swamp-dwellers, and NeoStalinists that make up their base. Hey, even that may not be enough; the Democrats might start passing foreign aid bills subsidizing al Qaeda operations and the Iranian nuclear weapons program, which is, by some optimistic reports, still two years from completion. All in profuse, obsequious, bootlicking penitance for George Bush's unpardonable sin of resisting the Islamic conquest of the planet for Allah. In Iraq, at least.
I don't agree that this would "destroy the Democrats on foreign policy and national security for a generation," because they spent the past five years destroying themselves on foreign policy and national security and still got back into power last November. But it could still cost Dirty Harry his narrow Senate majority, in the form of Joe Lieberman finally doing what he should have done years ago and picking up stakes and moving across the aisle, tipping the balance to 51-50 GOP with Dick Cheney's tye-breaking vote.
Yeah, it still sounds like a pipedream. How could Lieberman stay in the Donk caucus after the way his own party turned on him last fall? But he's generally been a man of his word (his kamikaze run with Al Gore in 2000 not withstanding), and he's made it clear that forcing an outright cut & run from Iraq would be his final straw.
Maybe Dirty Harry has a secret insurance policy up his sleeve. But even if the war against the war isn't successful in this Congress, total defeat in the form of President Hillary Rodham, is still only a matter of time.
Never has the Ledeenian catch phrase "Faster, please" been more intensively relevant.
posted by JASmius at 9:43 AM
<<< Home