Tuesday, March 06, 2007


Democrats: even worse than I thought!

OK, maybe not. Maybe just worse than you thought. Or maybe not that either. The Washington Post reports:
Senior House Democrats, seeking to placate members of their party from Republican-leaning districts, are pushing a plan that would place restrictions on President Bush's ability to wage the war in Iraq but would allow him to waive them if he publicly justifies his position.

The new plan would demand that Bush certify that combat troops meet the military's own standards of readiness, which are routinely ignored. The president could then waive such certifications if doing so is in "the national interest."
And you know Bush will treat that waiver with the utmost of seriousness. For an example of what I mean by that, Prensa Latina reports this story out of Geneva:
Cuba termed ridiculous the US government s justification to maintain its economic, financial and trade blockade against the Caribbean island, "due to national security reasons."

In an informal meeting of the Non Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) Negotiation in the Swiss capital, the...Havana representative termed "laughable" and without "the least bit of credibility" the national security pretext to perpetuate the White House economic siege.
An isolated incident? Hardly. The U.S. invoked "national security" stemming from the "threat" from the Sandinista government of Nicaragua to justify its policies there as well, and its safe to say that if Nicaragua under the Sandinistas, or Cuba, is a "national security" threat to the United States, then surely any any "restrictions" imposed on Bush by Congress will be just as "laughable," since the alleged threats to "national security" will be even greater.

But wait, there's more, as they say in the TV ads for Ginsu knives. Because it's not just the Democrats who are laughable, but "antiwar" groups as well:

After a conference call yesterday, antiwar and labor groups all but gave up on Murtha's approach, concluding they could only support a war-funding "supplemental" bill if it contains a deadline for withdrawing troops.

Participants -- including the Service Employees International Union, MoveOn.org, Win Without War and the Iraq veterans group VoteVets -- insisted there would be more support for a straightforward approach to ending the war than the roundabout efforts Murtha champions.

"A timeline will make a vote for the supplemental a vote to end the war and a vote against it a vote for war without end," said Tom Matzzie, Washington director of MoveOn.org Political Action.
A vote for more war is a vote to end the war, and a vote against spending more money for war is a vote for war! The Mad Hatter would be so proud.

And just as a final note of irony, MoveOn.org is routinely described on various cable talking heads shows, and I'm not just referring to shows on Fox, as an "extreme left-wing" group.

Why stop here? There's more...

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com High Class Blogs: News and Media