No one is doing anything! There’s more yak, yak, yak in Washington, D.C. than there is at the corner coffee shop of Middletown America. It's shameless, degrading, and useless.
Actions speak louder than words. What are the actions? How do they match up with what has been said? Bush said his goal was relative peace and stability in the region - and yet he is not there making it happen. Why is he still on U.S. soil when that is not where the conflicts are, when that is not where our servicemembers are dying, when that is not where the people are that need be spoken with in order to bring peace and stability to the region?
Conversely, if the Democrats were all that hot on getting this wrapped up, why are they not actually doing so? The Democrats remind me of the parent who warns their child about what will happen if they don't stop jumping on the furniture instead of just taking the child off the furniture. Verbally disapproving of the troop surge? How is that different from "Johnny, stop jumping on the couch!" It isn't - Johnny is still jumping. Non-binding resolution? Oh look, Johnny is still jumping – duh – and he will continue to jump until the parent grows a couple and makes Johnny stop. So far, the parent is still sitting at the kitchen table drinking their coffee and hollering out completely useless commands from afar.
Both sides blame the other for lack of action and all this accomplishes is shifting our focus from what one isn't doing to what the other isn't doing. Wake up America; neither side is doing a damned thing.
A troop surge is fundamentally no different than a non-binding resolution because neither of these things will accomplish what is said to be the goal of either side - bringing peace and stability to the region or bringing the troops home.
What is the goal in Iraq and Afghanistan? If you say anything other than direct quotes from the administration, you're speculating. If you can't say, it's because there have been no quotes to take directly from the administration. The same can be said of the Democrats' goals. What the hell are the goals?
As far as I can tell, the Republicans' goal is to keep this war going no matter what the cost - on all levels. The reason? So Bush and his administration can save face. Jeezy creezy, that could take decades if it ever even happens. If it's something other than a world record-setting face-saving contest, then what the hell is it? Freedom, peace, stability? Judging by the actions, it sure hasn't looked like it since the capture of Saddam Hussein. We've not caught Osama bin Laden, and the troops on the ground do not currently have the mission of capturing him, so what's the goal there?
Article comments
1 - Joe
Yawn. Is it over yet? I fell asleep.
2 - Maurice
To quote P.J. O'Rourke:
"Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us."
and:
"The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop."
and:
"War is steroids and free weights for government."
and:
"The Military kills people and breaks things. It should not be used for anything else."
Note: Diana used the term "Jeezy ceezy". That's just not right
3 - Nancy
Excellent post, Diana: you said it right that ALL parties all around are responsible for doing something, yet all they do is posture & pontificate.
I have a good, solid suggestion: let's all get together & lynch the entire lot of them, from the WH all the way up to The Hill, & hang their worthless carcasses from the trees on the mall as a warning to other wannabe congressmaggots & War Presidents. I'll bring the rope.
4 - Krutic
I'm surprised anyone is surprised at the fact that the government is great at dragging its feet. This is as old as the idea of democracy itself.
5 - BriMan
This is not an apology for anyone; but in the interest of fairness, I must question the following assumption:
"The Democrats took the majority " and then what happened?"
The Senate is a virtual tie on matters of war with Lieberman voting red. The 2008 election does have many Republicans thinking hard about carrying Shrub's water but not enough to actually debate the occupation even after 4 years of killing and maiming.
I agree with the premise of the article nonetheless. There is plenty of blame to be shared by our one-party-as-two-parties system.
Peter Ustinov said "Terrorism is the war of the poor and war is the terrorism of the rich." The rich are the problem in America - they have saddled us all and are willing to put us away wet or dead.
6 - Clavos
The rich are the problem in America - they have saddled us all and are willing to put us away wet or dead.
So should we kill 'em?
7 - Dave Nalle
And after we kill them should we eat them? I hear they are richly marbled with fat and therefore most tasty.
Dave
8 - Johhny Figgs
Okay, you asked the following questions:
Question #1: Afghanistan was invaded, putting bin Laden on the run " and then what happened?
Answer #1 : Although Bin Laden himself has not yet been captured, we destroyed over 90% of his regime and pretty much anialated the Taliban. Thus making the US of A a safer place to live since the Taliban had much more planned for us aftr 9/11. 9/11 was just the beginning of their plan to destroy America and the people who live here.
Question #2: Saddam Hussein was captured and his regime toppled " and then what happened?
Answer #2: A country who lived in fear, poverty, no freedome whatsoever, and was ruled by a modern day hitler.......became free. A man who is responsible for millions of deaths, most of who were innocent women and children, is not ruling the country any longer. A regime who aided and helped fund terrorists and their plots to destroy the USA as well as other countries, is now, itself, destroyed and no longer. Innocent families with children/ babies can now live their lives without fear of being slaughtered for no reason. The Iraqi Olympics people can now participate in their sports that they love without being tortured if they lose or come second in place.
This is just a short little beginning to the answers to these questions.
Thanks,
JF