The Democrats' goal appears to be to verbally harass the administration until they cave in and bring the troops home. This is no more going to happen than Johnny coming off the couch the first time or third time he's told. Johnny knows he's got two or three free chances to jump before his parent even bothers to stand up from the table, maybe more before the parent drags themselves over to the couch. Even then, dear Democrats, are you absolutely sure you even care about the condition of the couch or what could happen if Johnny falls? Judging by your actions, it sure hasn't looked like it so far.
The obligatory tossing about of terms like "freedom," "liberty," and "peace" sounds good on paper and in speeches, but what has actually been done by this administration and the Democrats who won the majority to bring about the meanings of these very words?
Baghdad is not the whole of Iraq. Not one home the troops have stormed, are storming, or will storm belongs to the Iraqi leaders who must now agree to sit down to formal negotiations with the United States or have their war-ravaged country dumped squarely in their non-acting laps. Who has told them to put up or shut up? No one. Who has given them a deadline to act else they'll have no one acting on their behalf? No one.
The wimpy wisps of "we don't approve" are no less wimpy in writing or when propped up by the words "non-binding resolution." It's worthless, meaningless, and an unbelievable waste of time. Not one Democrat can say, "This servicemember's life was saved as the result of this action," thus it's crap.
The Democrats and Republicans both have failed miserably. When will the constituents of both sides hold their side's feet to the fire and tell them to get moving? The only actions and the only ones doing anything are the servicemembers themselves. Remember the troops? They’re the people both Democrats and Republicans focus on when their efforts to focus on the screw-ups of their opposition fail. Lots of shifting and lots of refocusing, and still nothing has been accomplished.
While both Democrats and Republicans come to the almighty defense of their leaders, the leaders themselves are doing nothing — but isn't it quaint how the one thing they have managed to accomplish is getting their constituents mad at the other side? Isn’t it interesting how both sides can keep their constituents occupied with what the other side isn't doing — thus shining the light away from what they themselves aren't doing?
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