The People Have Spoken!
After 100-and-I-don’t-care-how-many days of pointless posturing, the House passes a meaningless surrender bill 218-208.  The mandate, the will of the American people and their enthusiasm for surrender, failure and genocide in Iraq, etc., expressed here turns out to be a margin of 10 votes, or about 2.3 percent of those voting.
Senate passes the bill, 51-46. That would be a mandate of about 5 percent. An improvement!
The 110th Congress has been intensely interested in symbolism, as it seems to be incapable of acting in a substantive manner. The AP, much impressed by all this impotent posturing, breaks left of the New York Times to exult in the possibility that Bush’s veto could fall on 4th anniversary of his “Mission Accomplished!” speech.   Â
The AP’s failure to get what is at stake in Iraq and on Capitol Hill is helpfully pointed out by leftie blog ambitiously self-described as the Horse’s Mouth, which was shocked the other day that the New York Post would dare to rewrite a typically myopic and biased AP report on the surrender bill negotiations.Â
The AP’s David Espo strived mightily to make ”Lost” Harry Reid look heroically statesmanlike and the Dems reasonable, while burying the fact that his go-nowhere plan is, as WH flak Dana Perino put it, a “death sentence” for million of Iraqis … or would be if Reid and Pelosi actually had the power to make it happen.Â
By DAVID ESPO - A historic veto showdown assured, Democratic leaders agreed Monday on legislation that requires the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.
‘No more will Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration’s incompetence and dishonesty,’ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a speech in which he accused the president of living in a state of denial about events in Iraq more than four years after the U.S.-led invasion.
BY DAVID ESPO April 24, 2007 — WASHINGTON - The White House warned yesterday that Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid’s new legislation requiring the first U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by Oct. 1 is a “death sentence” for millions of freedom-loving Iraqis.
The stinging comments from President Bush’s spokeswoman came just days after Reid declared the war is already “lost” and as negotiators for the House and Senate nailed down the details of the war bill, which also set a goal of completing the pullout by April 2008.
The AP, in case the Horse’s Orifice is not entirely clear on the concept, is supposed to be serving newspapers of all political stripes with non-partisan copy, but has long since ceased to do that. The Washington and Iraq copy invariably tilts hard left, routinely requiring extensive rewrite to restore any semblance of balance and to locate the actual news and give it some context.  The AP, however, is a rented mule and can be beaten as paying customers such as the NY Post see fit. So while rewrite can be a nuisance for editors, it is not a problem. Espo informs the Horse’s Piehole that the NY Post version bears no resemblance to what he wrote. I should hope not. He’d find himself filing from Peoria pretty quick if it did.
* Curiously, the ”original” AP version that the Horse’s Whatever links to includes Reid’s disparagement of Cheney as Bush’s “chief attack dog” without including the Cheney remark. So it looks like it might have been edited, too. That version does, however, uphold the integrity of Espo’s editorial decision to allow Reid to run off at the mouth while granting only a couple of Bush/Perino remarks.  The Post version, which reverses the Reid-Bush formula,  includes neither Cheney’s remark nor Reid’s disparagement.
What Cheney said is also quite relevant. More so than Reid’s ad hominem, sorry, ad caninem ”attack dog” retort. So here it is:
“Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics,” Cheney said. “Sen. Reid himself has said that the war in Iraq will bring his party more seats in the next election.”
“It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage,” Cheney said.
The Boston Herald did some mild rewrite on the same story, toning down the Reid adulation, though I have to say I liked the Post version.Â
Meanwhile, for a look in the rearview mirror of American media bias, John Hawkins weighs in on the big Bill Moyers special: “Self-Serving Liberal Propaganda about the Media Coverage in the Runup to the War in Iraq.”Â
Welcome Pundit readers! Stick around. We’re technically ambitious, robust, networked, agile. Funny, the sun doesn’t usually rise over there. Crowd-pleasing Militant Idol Dadullah is singing praises of America’s Most Wanted Militant. Everyone loves a quote from the oft-quoted Gen. Petraeus: Here’s what he actually said. And in case you missed the parade, yesterday was Anzac Day. Hats off, shed a tear, stand in awe of the Little Nation that Does.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:21 am on Thursday, April 26, 2007
17 Responses to “The People Have Spoken!”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Web Reconnaissance for 04/26/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:04 am
What you call meaningless is a bill that reflects what a majority of Americans have come to feel about a war that has cost so many lives and so much money and for which there is no end in sight because it has become a civil war among religious sects, with many Al Qaeda terrorists flocking there as a natural spot to cause further anti-west actins and strike out at America. Till that invasion–based on lies and/or misin formation–Saddam–terrrible as he was–managed to keep Iran at bay. Now we have allosed Iran to pretty much call the tune in this region of the world. It is easy enough for your clever writing and name calling to put down a vote that will be vetoed, but that veto will alert some march-in-step Republicans where their votes may be going in the forchoming election.
Easy enough to scoff at eid. Yes. He says the war is lost. Can you show us then how it is either won or will be won ? How many more troops must we send? What has happened to our military forces (let alone VA hospitals) under Bush? But mock on…mocking will be much better than a vote than will be vetoed.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Not only that, but if Bush does decide not to block a bill to support our troops, then every Senator who votes against overriding will be out on the record as supporting the President. Which is… not such a good idea these days.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:33 am
What is typically left out of the political white noise surrounding the stream of consciousness application of political hubris by the left in this case, is the fact that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are attempting to usurp the authority of the executive branch and the President’s Constitutional role as Commander in Chief via this bill. The Congress does not have the authority to determine when the troops leave Iraq. That is relegated to the Executive branch and is out of bounds, to be kind. I understand that liberals are used to abusing the separation of powers by legislating from the bench, but it’s clearly not going to work this time, and their efforts are, as such, a waste of time, money, and trust of the people. Attempting this usurpation as they have is not only a violation of ethics, but a Violation of the oath of office they took (not to mention the Constitution). This renders the repeated argument by pundits and agenda driven lemmings (which is wrong on its face) moot, that the liberals are simply reflecting the will of the American people. It is not the will of the American people that the legislative branch usurp the authority of the executive branch. And if it is - too bad, the Constitution settles that matter.
The liberals do have an alternative to illegally overstepping their Constitutional mandate, and that is, to stop the funding of the troops. That would most assuredly end the war. But, alas, they don’t have the nerve which proves the point that it is not the will of the people to vacate Iraq based simply on impatience. If there was political gain in doing so, the liberals would have shut off the capital flow long ago. So there is no consideration of what the people want here - there is only consideration of a destructive agenda, which, thankfully, our system of government can arrest before its viral intent is realized.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:52 am
2007.04.26 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup
The Reid/Pelosi/Murtha Iraq plan in simplified form: …
April 26th, 2007 at 11:55 am
The Reid/Pelosi/Murtha Iraq plan in simplified form:
1) Predict failure
2) Do whatever it takes to make the prediction come true
3) Blame it on George Bush
What we are watching, people, is absolute moral bankruptcy in action. Reid and Pelosi are contributing to American deaths in Iraq just as surely as Kerry and Fonda did in Viet Nam. May they burn in eternal Hell.
I excerpted and linked at 2007.04.26 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Rc60,
So when the Republicans set a deadline for withdrawal from Somalia, you shook your fist in outraged fury at the unconstitutional usurpation of authority, the violation of ethics, the destructive agenda, etc., etc., etc.?
April 26th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Typo: should have said 1993.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Stroker,
There would have been an insurgency and civil unrest in Iraq regardlesss of whether or not we found WMDs. However, if we had found WMDs, the American people’s perspective of both the insurgency and civil unrest would be completely different.
The failure to find WMDs allowed the Democrats to make the argument that the Iraq War was a mistake. If you can convince people that getting involved in a war was a mistake, it’s that much easier to convince them that finishing the job is a waste of time, if not a lost cause.
If we had found WMDs, an overwhelming majority of Americans would believe that removing Saddam Hussein from power was necessary. The Democrats wouldn’t be able to accuse Bush of lying or misleading anyone. As difficult as defeating the insurgency and calming civil unrest might be, the American people would understand the necessity to stabilize Iraq, so that it would not be taken over by people who were even worse than Saddam Hussein, who would try to get their hands on the very same WMDs that we confiscated. The failure to find WMDs has allowed the American people to believe that Saddam Hussein wasn’t such a threat, and maybe all this hysteria about Islamic extremism is overblown.
Bringing democracy to an Arab nation was never going to be an easy prospect. And there was always the risk that if it doesn’t work out, Taliban style Islamists could take over. But you can’t create positive change unless you’re willing to take risks. It’s like the guy who hates his job, but he’s too scared to leave out of fear that he’ll hate his next job even more.
The failure to find WMDs has been a national disaster. It has allowed the Democrats to display all their most negative traits, while putting doubt into the hearts of an American people who are not knowledgable enough about the Mideast to understand that both the risks President Bush took by invading Iraq, as well as all the blood spilled by US soldiers over the past four years are well worth the potential gains, WMDs or not.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
failure always has been and always will be a self fulfulling prophecy.
The little engine that could didn’t get to the top of the hill by chanting…”I think I can’t…I think I can’t”, every 3 year old knows this.
There is no shortage of people filling the nations welfare roles that start off virtually every conversation with “The reason I can’t”.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Waste of money, you gutless bastards. Just cut off funding, again, you gutless bastards.
The American Al Qaeda is not John Walker Lindh, nor is it Jose Padilla, it is the party of the Leftist donkey and a few gutless republicans. The enemy from within.
This is how gutless these ‘things’ are…Dems: Giuliani ‘Failed to Prepare NYC’ for Second Trade Center Attack .
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200704/POL20070426c.html
Gee, I thought we had a Billy Bob as president whose sworn duty was and is, to protect the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. Must have missed the part where he swore to get head, on my tax dollars. and let a bin laden run off to Afghanistan where he could plan. Even his own half baked security advisor Richard Cluck (spelled exactly the fucking way I wanted it spelled) told him to watch for bin laden…and that’s exactly what the asshole did…watch.
The Left are a waste of time, effort, and life. Hey Al, I have a way to stop the Gorebal Warmering, thing…take a flyin fuck at a rollin donut, and by all means take everyone of these assholes from the Left, with you.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
[...] The people have spoken, let the genocide begin! Posted on April 26th, 2007 in Politics, DemocratsSuck, RepublicansSuck by Bill (No Ratings Yet) Loading … JULES CRITTENDEN: The people have spoken! [...]
April 26th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
On September 11th I sat watching the events of the day unfold and I thought several things: First I thought that someone was going to pay. I didn’t know who at the time, but little by little I remembered events like the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massood a couple of days before (I get the Stratfor e-mail notices) and I started to make sense of what had happened. Beyond that I also knew that at some point we were going to have to deal with Saddam and I guessed that the Israelis were going to be given a freer hand in dealing with the Palestinians, all that seemed logical enough.
Look, Afghanistan could only ever be the first step in a long campaign. There are several reasons for this, the first being that it is a shit place to try and fight due to the terrain-which neutralizes many of our tactical advantages-and the fact that it is landlocked so that any effort to keep a large force supplied has to cross Pakistan-thereby potentially destabilizing the world’s only Islamic nuclear power. If you look at the ORBAT for Afghanistan you will see that our contribution to the fight has been overwhelmingly light fighters, presumably because of the terrain and their lighter logistical footprint.
Iraq was the next logical step. Saddam was a known enemy-and it is generally a mistake in war to allow one’s enemies to be able to plot against you-but he was also a good object lesson for other potential supporters of terrorism. After all, the big problem with terrorism is that, if you deny them one base of operations, they can always pick up and go somewhere else. Unless, of course, any government thinking of sponsoring terrorism believes that there is a price to be paid for doing so, and how could any such government believe that while a proven enemy like Saddam continued in power.
Further, Iraq is strategically located so that we can pressure other supporters of terror, as it borders three of the biggies, and there is a friendly nation with large enough seaports close by that we can use as a logistical base. Finally, Saddam was a monster and his departure from power would liberate millions from his despotism. All of this was compelling enough for me even leaving aside the issue of WMD.
What bothers me about the behavior of the Dems now is that they have never offered an alternative for what the next step should have been. Should we have continued to chase the Taliban around the Hindu Kush? I suspect we would have found that a fools errand. Should we have stepped up the restrictions on Saddam’s government? Well as near as I can tell the ones that were in place brought only howls of indignation from the lefites and enriched several UN globocrats via the oil for food scandal. Allowing the enemy to seize the initiative is usually a mistake in war, but I have yet to hear an alternaitve from the other side as to what we ought to have done once we drove the Taliban out of power and AQ in Afghanistan underground-leaving aside how many Dems voted for the invasion when the time came which ought to indicate that they were OK with the whole effort, at least until it got tough.
Now, the administration cocked things up pretty good-I’m talking to you Secretary transformation (I ain’t forgetting climbing in that hillbillied up truck to go north with your words about “going to war with the Army you’ve got” ringing in my ears) and I think that many of the assumptions that they made before hand were based on overly optimistic assumptions, but the Dems now just want to quit-TO DENY THE POSSIBILITY OF VICTORY!!!
That’s unacceptable.
If we lose-and that’s what it would be-then who wins? I think we all know who would win and I’ll be damned if I’m going to hand them a victory they didn’t earn. I’m watching you Chuck Hagel, you better not sell me out.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
What has happened to our military forces (let alone VA hospitals) under Bush?
This is another blame-Bush-for-everything lie, repeated endlessly by the ignorant. Benefits to the military and the deterioration of VA hospitals has been going on since the 70s, mostly under Democratic oversight. How do I know? Because Mr. H spent ten years in the army, and has spent decades dealing with the VA, and the worst years were under Carter and Clinton. This one you don’t get to blame on Bush.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Make that “cuts in benefits to the military”. Trust me, the world wasn’t created on the day you were born.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
[...] The People Have Spoken! - Jules Crittenden [...]
April 27th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
to corndog -
That’s funny. Comparing Somalia to Iraq. the Somalia “intervention” started as a UN sponsored food delivery humanitarian effort, not a war voted on by the Congress. It was flipped into a nations-building effort by the Clinton administration in 1993, without a Congressional declaration of war. That was the point at which I pounded my fists - the executive branch declaring war instead of Congress in a clear violation of the separation of powers requirement of the Constitution.
By contrast, the Iraq war is a continuation of a conflict as a result of the Iraqi government violating the ceasefire terms it agreed to. Preceeding re-engagement , the Congress, under Clinton, declared regime change in Iraq the official position of the US government. Subsequently, during the Bush administration and post-9/11, after months and months of attempts to negotiate a non-miltary resolution with Hussein’s government, the Congress voted overwhelmingly to support the war.
If you want to make comparisons, compare the behavior of the libs now to those during Vietnam. Identical. If they get their way, you can be sure the body count will rise as the totalitarians take over the region - which they publicly state as their goal daily. The Cambodians can explain it to you. At least the ones that survived the genocide can.