Thursday, September 20, 2007

Democrats Fiddle While Iraq Burns

Instead of actually ending the Iraq war, many Democrats today joined Republicans in fiddling around, wasting time and blowing hot air about an advertisement about the war.

And instead of rallying around a bill that would have cut off funding for the war, 20 Democrats voted against it. In response, "Senate Democrats defiantly charged ahead Thursday . . . armed with the mantra that Republicans, along with President Bush, now own the war."

This proves that most Democrats don't care about actually ending the war, but just want the political benefit of being able to act indignant and blame the mess in Iraq on the Republicans. Indeed, one Democrat who actually does want to do something is "livid that nothing concrete is being done about the war in Iraq except for empty gestures".

The Democrats could, of course, impeach the people who lied us into war based upon knowingly false statements about WMDs and Saddam's link to 9/11. Even if the people who got us into the war can't be removed, just starting impeachment proceedings would go a long way towards letting the Executive Branch know that it cannot have its way with the country, and that checks and balances on war and other issues will be restored.

Alternatively, the Democrats could decide not to continue funding the war. In other words, instead of solely relying on new bills that actively stop funding (and for which the Democrats apparently can't line up the votes), the next time a bill is introduced by the supporters of the war to continue funding, the Democrats could just vote no. It won't pass if they vote no. Without money, the war machine would grind to a halt.

Its like the game of chicken which politicians often play with the Federal budget, where one party puts heat on the other by holding up the budget until they get some concessions. Why can't the Dems hold up military appropriations bills until the White House agrees to a withdrawal timetable?

The Democrats aren't doing either of these things . . . or anything else that would actually stop or shorten the war. They are just posturing for the cameras.

The Democrats are fiddling while Iraq burns. And America's blood, treasure and reputation are all going up in smoke.

If you think I am a political partisan or anti-American for being against the Iraq war, remember that even the top U.S. general in Iraq has said that he doesn't know whether victory in Iraq will make us safer. And the American Secretary of Defense has said that he doesn't know if the Iraq war was worth it. And everyone from White House insider Phillips Zelikow to former chairman of the federal reserve Alan Greenspan have admitted that the Iraq war has nothing to do with the war on terror, weapons of mass destruction, or the safety of the United States.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

O.K. Join and call them on it. The more, the merrier. Right now, it is the only game getting traction. EQ

9:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another blogger gets it:

Dems Eating Their Own to Defend AIPAC

7:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aha! The Bushie think tank pulls the anti-semetic card yet again. Disinfo! EQ

6:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what about a revolution? anybody serious about that? i'm sick of the blind eye syndrome.

If I receive 1000 YES answers to the first question, then i'll know you are serious. Otherwise, go polish your SUV and fill your face with polluted fast food.

9:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is so sad that war crimes are being done, in a way there is little action possible, because everybody is so self-centered. But when the effect will come back, then it will be misery. We all die anyway we struggle
to have the best possible life so why put our effort on building weapons and then making misery to other human being, that want also just to be happy. This is a non-sense, knowing the action-reaction and cause and effect law...We should all be concerned for each other.

4:39 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home