« Headline Of The Day - Pick Your Poison Edition | Main | Taliban targets VP Cheney in Afghanistan »

The cowards of the country

A little while ago, I ripped Congress for their appallingly craven approach to the "surge" plans in Iraq. They hemmed and hawed and bleated, and finally decided on the "appropriate" course of action: a "non-binding resolution" opposing it. It was mealy-mouthed, half-assed, utterly pointless, and without a single redeeming feature.

Oh, wait, I exaggerate. It did have one redeeming feature: it kept them from doing other stupid things that might actually achieve something.

The reason I use "craven" as the first term is that I can't think of a better term for their conduct without resorting to severe profanity, and I try to limit my usage.

The moves against the "surge" plan are craven. They are duplicitous. They are two-faced. They are cowardly. And they are hypocritical.

General David Patraeus is the current commander of allied forces in Iraq. He assumed that position after being confirmed by the United States Senate by a vote of 81-0 on January 26 of this year.

And he is the architect and chief proponent of the "surge" plan.

General Petraeus went before the Senate and laid out his intentions for all to see. He described the "surge" plan. He said it represented the best option for securing Baghdad, and Iraq in general. He made it abundantly clear that he intended to go to Iraq with this plan, and carry it out to the best of his ability.

And when it came down to a vote on whether to order this soldier to do just that, more than four out of five United States Senators said yes. 18 couldn't be bothered to express their opinion on the matter. (I'm giving Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) a bye, because he's still recovering from a massive cerebral hemorrhage last December.)

So, almost exactly a month after giving their imprimatur to General Petraeus and his plan, the Congress now wants to undercut him and shred the mandate they handed him -- before he's even had a chance to fully put his plan into action.

Worthy ladies and gentlemen of the United States Senate, I respectfully submit to you that you're acting like assholes.

This fighting over the "surge" is not about military strategy. It's not about what is in the best interests of the nation. It's pure partisanship.

One month ago, it was hard to take a stand against the "surge." Standing before you was a man who had devoted his entire life to serving our nation, earning accolades and decorations and promotions. He stood before you and said that his plan, as developed by the best military minds our nation can produce, had the best chance of bringing peace to Iraq. He said that if you approved of his taking command in Iraq, he would carry out that plan to the best of his ability. And at that time, not a single one of you would stand and contradict him.

So, with 81 of your votes in his favor and not a single dissenter, General Petraeus left his home and family and went off to Iraq to carry out his duty.

His plane was barely off the tarmac before you started frantically attempting to undercut your own votes. Once he was out of your face, you began undermining and denouncing his plans, the very ones you had endorsed so solidly.

Ladies and gentlemen of the United States Senate, there is a proper time and place for criticizing a military plan. In fact, there are several.

The first opportunity is when the plan is first presented and submitted for your approval. That was a month ago. You blew that one. No, in fact, you deliberately and consciously chose not to criticize it, but to endorse it.

The second opportunity is after the plan has been started and developed, and it's beginning to show whether it's working or not. That is still some time off.

The third opportunity is once it's in full swing, when it's clear whether it has a decent chance of succeeding.

The fourth opportunity is after it is over, or pretty much so, when it's time for second-guessing and evaluating.

Kindly note that we are between the first and second opportunity -- when the plan is just being started. That is not the time for challenging. It's the time to sit down and shut the fuck up, to keep your word and stand by your prior commitment to support the plan.

So, just what has changed since the Senate gave its approval to the "surge" plan barely a month ago? A couple of factors.

For one, the physical presence of General Petraeus. It's far easier to critique his plans when he's halfway around the world than when he's standing right before you.

For another, the political calculus of the Senate leaders. One month ago, they didn't feel they could openly confront the Bush administration over Iraq. Since then, they've used their chickenshit "non-binding resolution" as a check on the general mood of the Congress, and feel that they have the numbers to actually try something substantive -- and make it stick.

The one thing missing from the debate: whether or not the "surge" -- and this wrangling at this particular time -- is in the best interests of the nation.

Because such principled concerns are too old-fashioned, too trivial, for our learned solons of Capitol Hill.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The cowards of the country:

» The Thunder Run linked with Web Reconnaissance for 02/26/2007

Comments (66)

MAJORITY "STRONGLY OBJECTS"... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

MAJORITY "STRONGLY OBJECTS" TO BUSH TROOP BUIDUP

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022600313.html

So here we go again tossing the old coward bromide around again. But god forbid if a dissenter uses chicken-hawk to describe you folks. Your hypocrisy is astounding. Yes Jay I know you're describing the Congress....so what. Apparently the Senate is reflecting the will of the people. God forbid they don't just stand at attention and rubber stamp the Bush Cabal.

Go big or go home.... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Go big or go home.

This is one of those situations where compromise is a sure lose-lose. But that's what the Democrats will settle for. If they pull the plug now on the Iraq War it will be too soon. If it ends quietly, the Iraq War will become a less significant issue for the coming election. If there are negative consequences to a withdrawal it will backfire on Democrats who don't want to take responsibility.

The plan, with the media's help, is to make the public believe this is still only Bush & the Republican's war. Democrats want a slow lingering death for the Iraq War and will do what's necessary to ensure that. That includes micromanaging the war and denying Petraeus the tools he needs to turn things around.

Hugh, aren't the Democrat b... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Hugh, aren't the Democrat being their own kind of Chickenhawks now? Trying to keep the war alive in a non-productive state instead of pulling the plug because they can't weather the political fallout.

I am so glad that Hugh post... (Below threshold)

I am so glad that Hugh posts so many comments here. He so frequently misses the point, I would worry if he was in a position where his aim and/or perception would matter.

Congress APPROVED the "surge" plan almost exactly a month ago, then furiously began undercutting it. Doesn't he see the insane inconsistency there, or does that simply not penetrate his little fantasy world? And doesn't that rank hypocrisy offend him, or is he willing to give it a bye because it suits his political agenda?

Hugh would fit in just fine with the current Congressional leadership -- and no, Hugh, that is NOT a compliment.

J.

Jay:Leave it to yo... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Jay:

Leave it to you to convolute and twist the truth to fit your illogical argument(s). The Congress approved an appointment. That's what they do with rare exception.

Now, if they do nothing more other than an empty resolution I would completely agree with you about their worthlessness. Pretty simple to understand. Even for you Jay.

But you and the others on the extreme right (yes Jay you are way out there about 90% of the time despite your abject denials) brook no dissent in this country. You and others toss around words like coward and traitor in a simplistic attempt to be right. It's your rank hypocrisy Jay, not mine.

And again when challenged by the facts you ignore them. Just as the Bush Cabal does on a regular basis. Jay, in case you haven't gotten it yet, THE COUNTRY supports the democrats and the senate on this one.

Hugh said:<blockquote... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Hugh said:

But you and the others on the extreme right (yes Jay you are way out there about 90% of the time despite your abject denials) brook no dissent in this country.

Hmmm ... how could this comment be proved wrong?

Oh, yeah ...

Jay allowed your comment to be posted. If he 'brooked no dissent' as you claim, then you wouldn't have been allowed to post something that dissented with what he said.

You are making a very basic mistake, Hugh. Jay DISAGREED with you - he didn't SILENCE you. He has the same right to state an opinion that you do. He even has a right to "dissent" from your opinion.

It appears to be you, not him, that has a problem with "dissent".

To the subject ....

As I have previously stated here, I have little faith in polls. People fund them and they are often constructed in such a way to gather the preconceived response the funder wants.

I don't want my Senators to sway in the wind in response the latest poll and base their respons on who funded it.

I want my Senators to LEAD.

Once upon the time Sherrod Brown was a that type of leader. Then he sold his soul for a Congressional seat. Hopefully, he will find his spine again.

George Voinivich may anger conservatives on issues - I sometimes shake my head at his actions myself. However, I do believe that he bases his decisions on his own sense of right and wrong - and not on what the latest poll tells him. In other words - he leads by example and takes the consequences.

Hugh,The WP poll y... (Below threshold)
Robert the original:

Hugh,

The WP poll you cite has several problems. The most important of which is a huge oversampling of black voters that has been admitted.

We don't know yet the extent of the OTHER oversamoling of Democrats, normal for the Post.

Almost a hundred EXTRA black voters were in the population of about one thousand polled. Who knows what else they did, but this is enough to throw this poll out.

If you read Gen. Petraeus o... (Below threshold)
drlava:

If you read Gen. Petraeus official counterinsurgency manual you see that the plan Bush has adopted is 4 years to late and 125,000 men short.

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24fd.pdf


I'll tell you who the cowards are. The far right submissives that are willing to let young men die in a futile hope that their obsolete conservative ideology is not really DEAD and that their president is not a hapless fool.

Ohio Voter:As to p... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Ohio Voter:

As to polls and the senate. The November election was, in part, a message to the Congress that the majority of the voters want the conduct of the Iraq war changed and (they) do not support Bush's conduct of it. If you don't believe that then you have your head in the sand (which I don't think you do).

You may wax philosophical all you want about leadership. I happen to believe leadership in this instance happens to coincide with the will of the people.

As I said in the previous post it better be more than an empty resolution. If not, they are worthless and should be booted out in 2008 and 2010.

Hugh, with all due respect,... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Hugh, with all due respect, you're being a moron.

Hugh:


And again when challenged by the facts you ignore them.

You've posted nothing in this thread other than your own opinion. The only thing the might construed as fact is a data on other peoples opinion.

The fact is that when Petraeus stood before the Senate, the Senate knew who he was and what his plan was. If they had a problem with either of the two, THEN was the opportunity to express it and to challenge it (note: that's what JayTea's labeled as the first opportunity). If there were doubts or objections, during the confirmation was the appropriate time to express those and have that debate.


Hugh:<br... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Hugh:


I happen to believe leadership in this instance happens to coincide with the will of the people.

So, you honestly believe true leadership is doing what's popular ? Is that advice that you've given your children ?

Hugh, stop showing off your... (Below threshold)

Hugh, stop showing off your ignorance about the way our government works.

If you're going to project forward, you should have included 2012 instead of 2010 -- because that's the next time any senators elected last year will be up for re-election. Representatives elected last year, and the next president, will be chosen in 2008. The 2010 elections will be no one's "day of reckoning" over current issues, except for senators elected in 2004.

J.

"16 June 2006 (Final Draft)... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"16 June 2006 (Final Draft)"

We're 4 years too late to implement a policy whose final draft was issued less than half a year ago?

Sorry, that should have sai... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Sorry, that should have said "less than a year ago?"

As to polls and th... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
As to polls and the senate. The November election was, in part, a message to the Congress that the majority of the voters want the conduct of the Iraq war changed and (they) do not support Bush's conduct of it. If you don't believe that then you have your head in the sand (which I don't think you do).

I am constantly amazed at the presumed 'madate' some Democrats think the 2006 election gave them.

If the comment was laughable in 2004 when Bush said it - and I did laugh at his arrogance in saying it then - then most assuredly it is also laughable in 2006 when the Senate is a virtual tie.

The message being sent was - as likely - that the American people don't trust the Congress to do the right thing. By keeping the Senate close, they could limit the damage Congress could do.

Nice gratutious insult, BTW. You weren't trying to 'crush dissent', were you? LOL!

Funny, Hugh, in the biggest... (Below threshold)

Funny, Hugh, in the biggest race where the war was biggest issue (some would say the only issue), Lieberman stomped the crap out of the Nutroots candidate and the Democratic party machine.

Or is that "the exception that proves the rule?"

J.

Now you all have me laughin... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Now you all have me laughing. This must be the only place on earth that (1) never believes a poll unless it supports your point of view and (2) denies what every other clear thinking person in the freaking entire universe knows - THE COUNTRY does not support the surge. THE COUNTRY wants us out the Bush Disaster in Iraq.

What the freak has one vote in one state got to do with anything Jay? Talk about grasping at straws...holy cow man, you're becoming delusional now.


Ohio - I'm sorry I was wrong. You do have your head in the sand.

Jay Tea, you know where all... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Jay Tea, you know where all this comes from, don't you? The die-hard leftists lost it completely when Gore lost in 2000, and most of them decided then and there that any decision made by Bush would be illegitimate and wrong no matter what. Unfortunately, many of them were Democratic politicians and media types, and they've declared anyone and everyone who isn't on board with the "Bushisalwayswrong" mentality to be "the extreme right" as Hugh did. If Bush were to declare "it gets dark at night," we'd never hear from Hugh again because he'd have wrapped his car around a tree driving at 11pm with his headlights off.

So now we're stuck waiting for these folks to either grow the fark up, or self-destruct from the internal contradictions they put themselves through regularly. I don't think it's going to be an easy wait.

OK, let's see - = ... (Below threshold)

OK, let's see -

= Condescending attitude - check.

= False statement - check.

= Unsupported assertion - check.

= Dismissal of relevant counter-example - check.

= Argument ad hominem - double check.

OK, Hugh, you can invoice for your work now.

Hugh does not know the diff... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Hugh does not know the difference between a democracy and a republic. When you are motivated by hate only, this is what you get. ww

Boy, if this piece has Hugh... (Below threshold)

Boy, if this piece has Hugh so bent out of shape, his head's going to positively explode when the companion piece goes up at 11:00.

Consider this fair warning, Hugh: you may want to wrap your head in duct tape around 10:55 or so.

And be sure to leave at least one airhole.

J.

Hugh:"Now, if ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Hugh:

"Now, if they do nothing more other than an empty resolution I would completely agree with you about their worthlessness. Pretty simple to understand. Even for you Jay."

Earth to Hugh, they did come up with something more than an empty resolution. But in true spineless fashion, and when it's demonstrated they are only posturing for political points and NOT for anything substantial, they turn tail and run.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic leaders backed away from aggressive plans to limit President Bush's war authority, the latest sign of divisions within their ranks over how to proceed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq.

Senior Democrats who drafted the proposal, including Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, had sought swift action on it as early as this week, when the Senate takes up a measure to enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

"Swift action?" The only thing swift is how fast they yanked their collective fingers out of the political winds, realized they overplayed their hand and are in full retreat

Hugh:<br... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Hugh:


What the freak has one vote in one state got to do with anything Jay? Talk about grasping at straws...holy cow man, you're becoming delusional now.

If you believe your point is valid, you could at least attempt to provide some rational explanation as to the reason behind Lieberman's victory if the election results could be interpreted as a mandate. Was it a mandate except in Conn ?

Of course, you could ignore the facts presented just recite your opinion, claiming it as fact, and fling personal attacks...

Be nice, _Mike_. If Hugh di... (Below threshold)

Be nice, _Mike_. If Hugh did that, he'd have nothing left to say...

J.

Jay:You've devolve... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Jay:

You've devolved into a scapiron, jhow commentor now. You sound just like them now. You have not responded to any of THE FACTS Jay. God forbid you deal with THE FACTS Jay. Just use the rightie bromides like traitor and coward. Sad Jay. Too much cold weather and snow?

marc......it's far from over in the congress. Again and again and agian....if they do nothing more than they have done kick their asses down the street.

wildlife....that's an old rightie canard when you have nothing to talk about. We "hate" or we're "cowards" or we're "traitors." Talk about something, offer something or just shut up.

Parker...are you the debate scorer or do you have something actually intelligent to offer? Give me another "check" now.

Notice the utter and absolute silence about THE FACTS???

Notice the utter and abs... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Notice the utter and absolute silence about THE FACTS???

Yes, Hugh, it has been long noticed you have nothing to do with actual facts. You started in this thread with an opinion poll, and have worked your way downwards from there.

MikeSo your logic ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mike

So your logic is one vote in one state for one man means THE COUNTRY supports the current conduct the Iraq war? Maybe a rational explanation is that the folks in Connecticut thought Liberman was a better man? Maybe they supported him because he has served them well for many years? Logical enough for you?

Now maybe you can supply some logical argument to refute mine, i.e. that THE COUNTRY does not support the current conduct of the war in IRAQ. I notice that no rightie has attempted to do that other than dismissing the validity of "polls." No rightie has offered any explanation for the why the Congress changes in 2006. All the righties here do is keep debating scores and mock.

"THE FACTS?" Hugh, the only... (Below threshold)

"THE FACTS?" Hugh, the only "fact" you've cited so far was a Washington Post "poll" that has already been discredited, as Robert pointed out. Everything else you've said are your interpretations and opinions -- which, I'm sorry to tell you, don't qualify as "facts" just because you say so.

You said the 2006 elections were overwhelmingly about the war. I pointed out that the single highest-profile race in that election featured the Nutroots anti-war crowd, with the full backing of the Democratic party, was trounced. So suddenly that becomes irrelevant.

You said that the 2008 and 2010 elections would be a day of reckoning for the war backers. I dismantled that one with Basic American Civics 101, and that 2008 and 2012 would be far more significant -- 2010 will be pretty much irrelevant on that point.

So, Hugh, where are these FACTS you keep touting? Every time I think we found one, it turns out we were mistaken... and you were wrong.

J.

Jay, you are confusing Hugh... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jay, you are confusing Hugh. Hugh, can you possibly believe you and the lefties don't hate GW? What are you smoking? ww

People who cite polls, usin... (Below threshold)

People who cite polls, using them as a basis of fact, are the worst. Polls are simply information tools. Instead they're overused and given far too much credence by those who are afraid, or unable, to stand by their convictions regardless of trends. "I'm against this war, and so are a bunch of other people. So there!" Too often, people use polls to form their opinions and polls DO sway public opinion. My God, they're a dime a dozen and there's something wrong with all of them. Over sampling, convoluted questions, leading questions, the funders and biased poll operators.

Polls show that more and more people began wearing bell bottoms again over the last five years. Does this mean I should go out and buy some? Hell no. That an era I'd just as soon forget. :-)

Hey! I may be on to something. There's a direct correlation between bell bottom wearers and anti-war advocates.

Hugh, Jay wasn't talking about you. He was talking about those in our government who voted strongly for a man AND the plan he laid out and then formulated a non-binding resolution against his plan as soon as he was out of sight. So yes, they're petty little tyrants and cowards. Rudy Guiliani called it "a comment". We don't elect our representatives to spend their time making comments. We elect them to make decisions. But they're afraid to because people might not like them. At least Murtha is actually trying to do something about it and his compatriots just let him twist in the wind while they wring their hands.

You're suggesting they should vote according to polls. That's mob rule. And it's especially bad when that mob is woefully uninformed.

Or does the left just support Petraeus like they support the troops? Like trophies on their mantles. As long as they don't do anything, all's well.

"No rightie has offered ... (Below threshold)

"No rightie has offered any explanation for the why the Congress changes in 2006."

Hugh, historically there is a big change in the makeup of Congress and the Senate in the middle of an eight year term presidency. It was talked about at length in the months preceding the last election.

Or are you really that new to politics?

Oyster, don't forget the "c... (Below threshold)

Oyster, don't forget the "culture of corruption" talk and Representative Foley. Those got a lot of press, too.

Of course, when the "corruption" talk turns to Democrats (Reid, Jefferson, et al), they get painted as "no big deal" or "aberrations."

The only significant race I can recall that hinged on the war was the CT Senate race, and there the anti-war candidate lost. Can anyone cite counterexamples? (This means you, Hugh.)

J.

What's funny is that Jay Te... (Below threshold)
Dan Irving:

What's funny is that Jay Tea's article wasn't really all that partisan. He attacked the Senate as a whole and said the Senators were being craven and cowardly. He states that the Senate voted 81-0 in favor of Praetus and his plan. Remember that Gen. Praetus and his plan were approved *after* the 2006 elections when the Dems held Congress.

The November election was, in part, a message to the Congress that the majority of the voters want the conduct of the Iraq war changed and (they) do not support Bush's conduct of it. If you don't believe that then you have your head in the sand (which I don't think you do).

Guess the Senetors didn't get the memo.

Using Huges own reasoning (that the Nov elections was a mandate and the new Senators represent the will of the people) then people want the surge. And now Huge says the people don't want the surge and want the troops to come home:

THE COUNTRY does not support the surge. THE COUNTRY wants us out the Bush Disaster in Iraq.

So why doesn't congress pull the troops home? Why the non-binding, say nothing but score political points, resolution? Why not cut funding like they did in '72? They control the Senate right? It's the will of the people right?

Hugh:<br... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Hugh:


So your logic is one vote in one state for one man means THE COUNTRY supports the current conduct the Iraq war? Maybe a rational explanation is that the folks in Connecticut thought Liberman was a better man? Maybe they supported him because he has served them well for many years? Logical enough for you?

Hugh, you're making yourself look foolish. I suggested that you answer JayTea's counter point rather than engaging in personal attacks if you thought your point was valid.


Hugh:


Now maybe you can supply some logical argument to refute mine, i.e. that THE COUNTRY does not support the current conduct of the war in IRAQ. I notice that no rightie has attempted to do that other than dismissing the validity of "polls." No rightie has offered any explanation for the why the Congress changes in 2006. All the righties here do is keep debating scores and mock.

Certainly.

The left keeps trumpeting that the '06 elections were a mandate on the war in Iraq. That is, the reason that people voted the way they did was by a majority decided based on their opinion of the war in Iraq. This doesn't mesh with the facts.

From CNN:


www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.main/index.html
The exit polls showed that 42 percent of voters called corruption an extremely important issue in their choices at the polls, followed by terrorism at 40 percent, the economy at 39 percent and the war in Iraq at 37 percent.

That is, according to the data the top issues for votes were as follows in DECREASING order of importance (note: saying that an issue was important for you doesn't indicate whether you were for or against)

1) government corruption (42%)
2) terrorism (40%)
3) the economy (39%)
4) the war in Iraq (37%)

According to the data, Iraq was WAY down the list as far as issues cited.

In short, the reason for the change of Congressional control in '06 was largely due to issues of government corruption (Foley and Hassert anyone?) and NOT opposition to the war in Iraq as the left (and their media) keeps claiming.

Yeah Jay, I forgot. I neve... (Below threshold)

Yeah Jay, I forgot. I never saw so much hypocrisy as I did with the Foley thing. They were distracted by a shiny object and forgot to pay attention to anything else for a while.

It's not over yet, but thus... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

It's not over yet, but thus far that plan is definitely working.

And as far as Democrats go, that would be awful.

drjohn,No, it's on... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

drjohn,

No, it's only working if the Democrats say it's working.

Concerning the original poi... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Concerning the original point by Jay, the Senate typically votes on nonpolitical appointees military promotions such as General Petraeus by unanimious consent..So their dispute is with the plan not the man.

There once was a man from I... (Below threshold)
Robert the original:

There once was a man from Iran,
Who would blowup as many as he can.
But what good would virgins be,
If a million pieces were he?
And two hookers the far better plan.

I would be very happy to se... (Below threshold)

I would be very happy to see the Iraq War over and successfully concluded. I would be very happy to see the Iraqui people living in peace and freedom for the first time in many, many, many years. I would be delighted to see all this because my only and dearly loved nephew is serving there!

The fact remains that these people have had very little experience of freedom from oppression and the learning curve is, therefore, steep for them. Add to that the outside agitators emanating from Iran and the curve becomes ever more perilous. I think if we don't bail on them too quickly, they'll manage to do it. But precipitous withdrawal will doom them to something as bad as the late unlamented Saddam and his group of psychotic thugs - or possibly even worse.

If you knew your history, you'd know that a Democratic Congress did that to South Vietnam and as a result, the people of South Vietnam continue to live in misery and captivity.

There is a virtual tie in the Senate to prevent the loons in the House from doing anything too horrible so it's impossible to call the results of the 2006 election as a mandate. And should the antics of the Dems in the House continue - their majority will be VERY short-lived.

No matter how you try to sp... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

No matter how you try to spin it Jay Tea the surge is a deepening, an escalation of America's involvement in a civil war. An act of imperialism that far outweighs any movement, however craven you'd like to position the objective of a non binding resolution to express the will of 65% of the people of this country.

The hypocrisy of the republican party beginning its own "surge" to try and dump this fiasco into the laps of the democrats so that they have someone to blame for their failed policies is what is REALLY craven.

An act of imperialism th... (Below threshold)
Dan Irving:

An act of imperialism that far outweighs any movement, however craven you'd like to position the objective of a non binding resolution to express the will of 65% of the people of this country.

Maybe I'm just being a thick 'rightie' but shouldn't they have 'express(ed) the will of the 65% of the people of this country' in December when they vetted Gen. Praetus and the surge?

The hypocrisy of the republican party beginning its own "surge" to try and dump this fiasco into the laps of the democrats so that they have someone to blame for their failed policies is what is REALLY craven.

The fact that the Dems have the power to stop eveything right now but decline to use that power isn't REALLY craven?

What a pathetic defense of ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

What a pathetic defense of escalation.

I'm am very displeased, and... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I'm am very displeased, and utterly unsurprised, with how the new Congress is performing. If they want to stop the war, then they should stop it. If they don't, then they should allow it to continue without trying to manage it themselves (that's not their job).

I was hoping that the new Congress would allow the war in Iraq to continue (since they did not have the willpower, and possibly the votes, to end it), and would focus on other issues that our country faces. The first 100 hours thing was promising, but it all ended there, and now this group is determined to get nothing done other than posture politically, angle for their presidential runs, and bash the President. None of that helps our situation in the short or long term.

That being said, I don't like the surge because I believe it is too small to make the difference it is supposed to. If you look at Patraeus' counterinsurgency manual, you will see that he is severely downgrading his own recommendations in endorsing the surge plan, and I have no doubt this is because a) that's what he was told to do, and b) we do not have the forces for a stronger push. I don't have a great deal of confidence it will work, but I could be wrong and if we aren't going to stop the whole damn thing, we should let them try. So far Operation Law and Order has reduced sectarian violence, but more big suicide attacks seem likely. I'm not optimistic, but its also not right to screw with the guys on the ground. Let them do their jobs.

I disagree, mantis, but I c... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

I disagree, mantis, but I can respect your opinion and they way you presented it. Thank you.

Crap, I guess I should have... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Crap, I guess I should have said that I disagree about the surge probably being enough. I definitely agree that Congress should butt out if they're not going to defund it.

They call us Chickenhawks, ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

They call us Chickenhawks, Proud, brave birds of prey.

Now they have their own name, Chickenshits. You know the stinking waste that falls out of a chicken's a**.

We couldn't have a bigger bunch of dhimmi idiots in congress if we had voted them in ourselves. Wait, some of us did, we got rid of some RINO's and put in traitors that can't possibly last and will make a laughing stock of the entire dhimmi party. It's working to prefection.

The greatest comedy in history is being put on today by the dhimmi party in congress. Standby for Thursday when the idiots in Washington State prove they are total idiots. The laughs just keep coming.

Excellent comment mantis!</... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Excellent comment mantis!

If Hugh could express his p... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

If Hugh could express his positions and handle debate even half as well as mantis does, he would be interesting to listen to. As it is, he's simply a boring troll.

Old Coot:Obviously... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Old Coot:

Obviously I get under your skin and that's good. Can't stand the facts and the debate just call folks names. You must be in the same clubhouse as scrapiron et al.

The greatest comedy in h... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

The greatest comedy in history is being put on today by the dhimmi party in congress.

I have to disagree. Some of Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner's early work together is quite sublime. Monty Python comes to mind. The "Who's On First?" routine by Abbott & Costello. There's alot to choose from.

...as well, some of Scrapir... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

...as well, some of Scrapiron's posts might also fall into that category if he weren't so frighteningly maladjusted.

Old Coot'Hugh is t... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Old Coot'

Hugh is the type that would bring a knife to a gunfight. He's got nothing but the same, tired, boring, banal mantra "Bush did it", how tiring. ww

Congress is helping Bush pu... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Congress is helping Bush put the screws to the regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.

I'd have thought you conservatives were big enough fans of "24" to recognize "good cop, bad cop" when you see it.

Obviously I get under yo... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Obviously I get under your skin and that's good.
Classic definition of a troll.
Can't stand the facts and the debate just call folks names.
Yes, that is what you've been doing.
Lee,
Congress is helping Bush put the screws to the regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Interesting observation, Lee. Plausible theory, too.

Although, Lee, I might not ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Although, Lee, I might not count, I'm a Heroes watcher, not 24.

Although, Lee, I might n... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Although, Lee, I might not count, I'm a Heroes watcher, not 24.

Ah, Heroes, X-Men without the social commentary, or the battles. I've been watching that one too, but to tell you the truth I'm getting a bit bored with it. Nice to see Eric Roberts getting some work, though.

WildLife:Actually ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

WildLife:

Actually I'd show up at the right gunfight.

giving their imprimatur ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

giving their imprimatur to General Petraeus and his plan
...
denouncing his plans, the very ones you had endorsed so solidly
...
stand by your prior commitment to support the plan.
...
Congress APPROVED the "surge" plan
...
those in our government who voted strongly for a man AND the plan he laid out

My my, this is all very convenient, isn't it? When Congress debates the positions of a Bush appointee, the demand from the right is that one should look only at their qualifications for that role, and not their take on any particular issue. Up or down vote! Now when Petraeus is confirmed, you immediately claim that as tacit endorsement of his plan.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 97-3. Stephen Breyer was confirmed 87-9. Should we now say that the right has no basis for criticizing their rulings, since you have "so solidly" already endorsed them?

Brian, even a dolt like me ... (Below threshold)

Brian, even a dolt like me can see the fallacies in your argument. A Spreme Court Justice appointment canot be compared to this by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh wait...the key word is "imagination".

Nevermind.

Brian,Bad analogy. ... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Brian,
Bad analogy. One of the generals qualifications was surely how he would manage the war in Iraq. Or are you saying that they didn't know about his surge plan?

So by your logic no Federal Judicial appointees should ever be discussed. All should be appointed and then approved because obviously they are already qualified to be judges. Have all of Bush's appointees been confirmed? They haven't right, now why is that?

Hugh said "Apparently the S... (Below threshold)
Brad:

Hugh said "Apparently the Senate is reflecting the will of the people."

**Hugh's a dumbshit liberal. The Senate wasn't established by the founders to reflect the will of the people. That's the role of the House. The Senate is intended to be a wiser, sage body that tempers the passions of the House.

**That's why, until the Constitution was amended to allow direct election, Senators were originally appointed by state governors.

**The Senate should act with wisdom, but this Senate doesn't even come close. Kind of like Hugh the f'ing moron.

**WHY THE FUCK DO GUYS LIKE HUGH SIDE WITH THE ENEMY????

Senators were originally ap... (Below threshold)
Brad:

Senators were originally appointed by state governors

**Oops, that should have been state legislatures.

Bad analogy. One of the ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Bad analogy. One of the generals qualifications was surely how he would manage the war in Iraq.

No, it's how competently he would manage it. Not how (as in "what strategy") he would use.

So by your logic no Federal Judicial appointees should ever be discussed. All should be appointed and then approved because obviously they are already qualified to be judges.

My "logic" said no such thing. Not all federal appointees are qualified for the position, even judges. And their qualifications deserve to be debated. But I do believe that idealogical positions should have less of a place than they do in today's climate.

Have all of Bush's appointees been confirmed? They haven't right, now why is that?

Oh, please. Don't even play the partisan victim here. Were Clinton's? They haven't right, now why is that?

Brad:Gee maybe you... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Brad:

Gee maybe you ought o try reading the Declaration of Independence, you might learn things like:

"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

As I understand civics it is the job of the Congress to represent the people and to pass laws. It borders on the absurd to argue the Senate does not represent the will of the people.

As for your somewhat typical right wing bromide about siding with the enemy it demonstrates the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of your view.

Hugh,Again you are c... (Below threshold)
Howie:

Hugh,
Again you are citing complete and total inaccuracies. Were you asleep or just completely absent from Government class in High School.

The Declaration of Independence is not the mandated document by which our nation was established. The Declaration was simply a document proclaiming the colonists ardent disdain for a tyranical government and their choice to remove themselves from the bondage of said government.

The UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION is in it's entire form provided the establishment of our form of government - a Representative Republic. The Constitution defines the power of the people through and by our elected representatives. That is Congress. It also formed the establishment of each individual state to also have their representatives. That is the Senate. Both elements combined gave us the Legislative branch of government.

Thanks to the governmental "leadership" in 1912 - 1913 States rights were completely removed from the landscape of our goverment thereby completely departing from what our founding fathers envisioned for this country.

Hugh, please, when you make a post, be informed, educated, and concise.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy