Those Folks Got A Lotta Quit In 'em
Well, well, well, looky what we have here. None other than the New York Times prints a story in which two lefty anti-war critics go to Iraq, look around, come back and are forced to admit that the "Surge" strategy is working; that breaking of the defeatist dike starts public support for the war to start levitating upward; and now the Democrat majority in the House has gotten cold feet on forcing through another "LOSE NOW!!!" resolution:
Ed Morrissey (to whose blogospheric hull this site has become affixed like a barnacle) doubts the Dems in either chamber have the votes to bulldoze through any more defeatist bills, which is reinforced by the comment from James Clyburn, the third-ranking House Donk, the other day that good news from Iraq would split his caucus.
That is ominous news for the Treason Lobby. It raises the stakes for the September showdown, and provides more than a month for additional "Surge" surging to rebuild public war support and shore up linguini RINO spines. Most of all, it imperils the Donk master timetable for forcing an American collapse in the Middle East (not just Iraq) early enough to be blamed on President Bush and the GOP during the 2008 general campaign. And if [GASP] victory is clinched by sometime next year? Can you say, "Up [Bleep] Crick without a shovel"?
Some may doubt the conventional wisdom that the raison d'etere of the Democrat 110th Congress is "ending the War" (Against Islamic Fundamentalism) - I don't - but there can be no question that if this majority can't accomplish the signature issue that (arguably) got it elected last November, its base of support stands a good chance of spontaneously combusting, and that "Big Mo" that everybody (including yours truly) has believed was at Donk backs will be thrown completely up for grabs.
All that power, that hegemony, the Hugo Chavez-ian transformation of America into the world's biggest banana republic, that has seemed within the Left's grasp may be in jeopardy of slip-slidin' away.
No wonder Congressman "Haw-Haw" is so pissed.
UPDATE: The Democrats are getting wobbly on "civil liberties" as well:
Democrats afraid of how the Bushies will depict them? Is this the same Beltway I've been lamenting for the past seven months? My, how the mighty have fallen and the meek have risen up (in spite of themselves).
For the moment, anyway. It really underscores a point Jim Geraghty made today:
Hindsight is 20/20 and always will be. But if we had "surged," say, at the beginning of 2005, might Iraq have long since been secured, the troops moved on to successor military campaigns against Syria and Iran, the war perhaps even won by now, and Congress still be in GOP hands?
"We don't want to see any retreat" on retreating from Iraq, eh? If I thought these miserable quislings had a modicum of a sense of humor, I could actually chuckle at that.A proposal by Representative John Murtha (D-PA) for the House to vote on withdrawal from Iraq without a timetable has been nixed, several lawmakers and aides said.
The opposition of the [Reactionary] Caucus also apparently doomed a proposal by Representatives Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) and John Tanner (D-TN) demanding a redeployment [snort] plan from President Bush. The measure will not get a vote this week.
[Reactionary] Caucus lawmakers met Tuesday morning and agreed they would not support any Iraq measure that does not include a firm timetable for withdrawal. ...
“We don’t want to see any retreat,” a [Reactionary] Caucus member, Representatave Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), said.That kicks the withdrawal debate ahead to September, when General David Petraeus is to issue a report on the success of President Bush’s “surge” plan. Many Republican lawmakers have said they will re-evaluate their support of Bush’s strategy based on the report.
Ed Morrissey (to whose blogospheric hull this site has become affixed like a barnacle) doubts the Dems in either chamber have the votes to bulldoze through any more defeatist bills, which is reinforced by the comment from James Clyburn, the third-ranking House Donk, the other day that good news from Iraq would split his caucus.
That is ominous news for the Treason Lobby. It raises the stakes for the September showdown, and provides more than a month for additional "Surge" surging to rebuild public war support and shore up linguini RINO spines. Most of all, it imperils the Donk master timetable for forcing an American collapse in the Middle East (not just Iraq) early enough to be blamed on President Bush and the GOP during the 2008 general campaign. And if [GASP] victory is clinched by sometime next year? Can you say, "Up [Bleep] Crick without a shovel"?
Some may doubt the conventional wisdom that the raison d'etere of the Democrat 110th Congress is "ending the War" (Against Islamic Fundamentalism) - I don't - but there can be no question that if this majority can't accomplish the signature issue that (arguably) got it elected last November, its base of support stands a good chance of spontaneously combusting, and that "Big Mo" that everybody (including yours truly) has believed was at Donk backs will be thrown completely up for grabs.
All that power, that hegemony, the Hugo Chavez-ian transformation of America into the world's biggest banana republic, that has seemed within the Left's grasp may be in jeopardy of slip-slidin' away.
No wonder Congressman "Haw-Haw" is so pissed.
UPDATE: The Democrats are getting wobbly on "civil liberties" as well:
Under pressure from President Bush, Democratic leaders in Congress are scrambling to pass legislation this week to expand the government’s electronic wiretapping powers.
Democratic leaders have expressed a new willingness to work with the White House to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier for the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on some purely foreign telephone calls and e-mail. Such a step now requires court approval. ...
In the past few days, Mr. Bush and Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, have publicly called on Congress to make the change before its August recess, which could begin this weekend. Democrats appear to be worried that if they block such legislation, the White House will depict them as being weak on terrorism.
Democrats afraid of how the Bushies will depict them? Is this the same Beltway I've been lamenting for the past seven months? My, how the mighty have fallen and the meek have risen up (in spite of themselves).
For the moment, anyway. It really underscores a point Jim Geraghty made today:
[W]hy did the surge concept only get tried at the beginning of 2007? By the end of 2003 it was clear that Iraq would have a persistent, violent insurgency. Where were these additional troops and more aggressive tactics in 2004, 2005 and 2006? In retrospect, didn’t the administration waste three years’ worth of American patience with policies and military leaders who essentially treaded water?
Hindsight is 20/20 and always will be. But if we had "surged," say, at the beginning of 2005, might Iraq have long since been secured, the troops moved on to successor military campaigns against Syria and Iran, the war perhaps even won by now, and Congress still be in GOP hands?
posted by JASmius at 4:03 PM
<<< Home