Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Congressional Democrats: There's a piper to be paid
The Democrats benefited from fatigue with and opposition to the Iraq war in November, and now it's time to pay the piper. The "anti-war" activists aren't going to let the Democrats toss them away like an old snot rag:
House Democrats tried to unveil their lobbying reform package today, but their press conference was drowned out by chants from anti-war activists who want Congress to stop funding the Iraq war before taking on other issues.
Led by Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a slain soldier, the protesters chanted "De-escalate, investigate, troops home now" as Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., began outlining the Democrats' plans to ban lobbyist-funded travel and institute other ethics reforms. The press conference was held in the Cannon House Office Building in an area open to the public.
Emanuel finally gave up trying to be heard over the chants, and retreated to a caucus room where Democrats were meeting.
This is going to make it awfully difficult for the Democrats to pretend that they aren't cutting and running from Iraq.
It will be interesting to see how the mainstream media reacts to this. I can easily imagine the gloating in the newsrooms if a room full of Christian conservatives shouted down a Republican press conference that did not concern itself with, for example, the immediate abolition of abortion. We'd hear no end of bleating about "radical" conservatives and their dominance of the Republican party. Now try to imagine the New York Times or CBS News complaining about the radical left's intimidation of the Democrats. You can't, because the mainstream media bends over backward to avoid describing Sheehan as a radical. The A.P. caption to the photo above describes her as a "peace activist," even though there is no chance that the other side will become peaceful even after we retreat. She makes common cause with the allies of our enemies. "Radical activist" is a far more accurate descriptor for Sheehan, but you will never read that in the newspaper tossed on your driveway in the morning.
Power Line has video, and GatewayPundit has his trademark link-o-rama.
22 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Wed Jan 03, 09:58:00 PM:
Damn radicals!
A large majority of our troops and a larger majority of civilian America are ready to change course in Iraq. A few vocal folks are calling for an immediate end. More are calling for a quick end. Even more are saying that any end at all would suit them just fine. To characterize the majority viewpoint as radical is to engage in the worst kind of O'Reilly-style parlor tricks.
If we're saying that this escalation/surgery is a way to stabilize Iraq, then what happens if it fails to accomplish that goal? Can we leave then? How many mistakes must be made before you'll say that these Republican leaders are causing more problems then they're solving?
What's radical is having goggle-eyed keyboard warriors demonize their countrymen for desiring peace.
By 
, at
Wed Jan 03, 10:44:00 PM:
The above comment is both delusional and indicative of a fantasy ideology.
Delusional in that the troops OVERWHELMINGLY support VICTORY and not defeat in Iraq. Which means they want MORE troops not less, and the gloves taken off so they can kick ass. Instead of PC shinola that Sheehan and the Dems saddled them with.
Delusional too in that people don't like Bush's conduct in the war, but are not keen to turn over part of Iraq to Al Qaeda and the other to Ahmadnutjob.
A fantasy in that Screwy thinks there won't be a price to pay for running away from Iraq right at the point where we've won. Since Al Qaeda cited specifically running away in Mogadishu as proof positive you could attack the US without consequence, the danger EVERY American can see is not making it clear what will happen for countries and regimes playing footsie with Al Qaeda.
Given that Pakistan is falling slow-motion putsch to Al Qaeda, the danger of running away from Iraq is nuked LA, NYC, DC, and other cities.
This ain't Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh never conducted mass terrorism in the US. If we run away they'll follow us home here and kill cities.
And you know what Screwy? DEMS and the MEDIA and Libs will all take the blame. No one will care if we lose a city or three about squatting over Korans.
Instead we'll be talking about either deportation or internment of Muslims. And incineration of a few Muslim nations.
I'd suggest it's time for Libs and Dems to face reality BEFORE the knife starts cutting off your head. But then you'd have to abandon the silly fantasies you have.
To GWB's credit, he did abandon SOME (mostly isolationism) after 9/11.
By Purple Avenger, at
Thu Jan 04, 01:22:00 AM:
If we're saying that this escalation/surgery is a way to stabilize Iraq, then what happens if it fails to accomplish that goal?
I don't think it will fail. If you've been reading up on Ramadi lately, you'd know why.
By Dan Trabue, at
Thu Jan 04, 07:04:00 AM:
As a quick response to this:
"Delusional in that the troops OVERWHELMINGLY support VICTORY and not defeat in Iraq."
Another soldier's mom points out:
"The American military, staunch supporters of President Bush and the Iraq war has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll, with results published in Army Times."
The Army Times story includes this:
The survey, which polled 6,000 active duty people at random..... found that for the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve.
We all support a better day for Iraqis. To that end, we strongly oppose Bush's approach to accomplish whatever it is he's trying to accomplish, which is disastrously wrong. Cindy Sheehan is no radical for wanting peace there, nor for wanting a pull-out and to look for a better approach.
But you're correct, TH, that it will be interesting to see how the media and the Dems handle being held accountable for them that voted them in.
By MR, at
Thu Jan 04, 09:02:00 AM:
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html
By , at
Thu Jan 04, 10:39:00 AM:
Straw man DH.
1. Survey did not survey troops IN IRAQ which strongly support the mission and strongly oppose running away.
2. Question regarded GWB's "handling" of the war and not the mission itself.
Cindy, Dems, Media, Libs etc don't want to fight the war "better." They want to surrender to Osama and Ayman Al Zawahari. In the belief that if we just grovel enough they'll spare our cities.
A more stupid course of action could hardly be imagined.
By Dan Trabue, at
Thu Jan 04, 10:57:00 AM:
"They want to surrender to Osama and Ayman Al Zawahari."
You forgot to say that we want to eat babies and kick puppies.
Come on! If you're going to demonize us, do it right.
We don't want to make Iraq a better place, to make the world safer from terrorism and to do so in a morally and logically-sound way. No, sir. We want to surrender to Osama, raise a statue commemorating Saint Saddam, require everyone to become muslim or be beheaded, eat babies and kick puppies.
Your demonization skills are sadly lacking Mr. Brave Anonymous.
By skipsailing, at
Thu Jan 04, 11:04:00 AM:
Dan, it's not your intentions that are in question, it the predicted result of your demands.
the road to hell is paved with good intentions Dan, let's not forget that.
By skipsailing, at
Thu Jan 04, 11:08:00 AM:
further, I believe that the Democrat party will turn its back on the radical anti victory crowd.
why? Money.
Byron York wrote about the Ned Lament sitatuation extensively. It seems that the KOSkids couldn't really raise a whole bunch of money, nor could they actually deliver an election victory.
yes the Dems are at a cross roads, the party of nothing must now expose itself to its own horrid tool: the cries of hypocrisy. The Howard Dean approach can now be aimed at the Democrat party. They have staked out a position and people will now compare the actions of the Democrat party to their stated goals.
turn about is fair play.
By Dan Trabue, at
Thu Jan 04, 12:49:00 PM:
"the road to hell is paved with good intentions Dan, let's not forget that."
Hell and Iraq, both.
While I don't have much faith in the Dems, I think there is some momentum against the war that the Dems and Republicans will have to face. The War is not an issue in their "first 100 hours" agenda, but I suspect the majority of the US are hoping that it comes to bear soon.
And if not, I further suspect that the US will become just that much more disillusioned with our supposed "representative" gov't and even fewer folk will turn out to the polls, further solidifying the power held by an increasing few.
Time will tell.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Jan 04, 12:55:00 PM:
The Military Times, while not quite an ideological rag, is not to be trusted to represent the military's political leanings. Contrary to belief, it is not published by the military and a lot of the shit they say is just freakin' weird, especially in the Opinion section.
By skipsailing, at
Thu Jan 04, 12:57:00 PM:
I think there are some serious questions about how things are going in Iraq and I believe that to be part of the democratic process.
I disagree with the sentiment that even the troops oppose the war. I read recently that the marines are at 146% of their retention rates and I'm not surprised by that.
I would feel more positive about the questions being asked if I believed that the situation in Iraq was portrayed accurately by the MSM. Since I don't own a TV I really don't know the gory details of the broadcast news coverage, but I've read enough to be really concerned about agenda journalism.
If the MSM was doing a better job and there were still questions I believe that America would be functioning effectively. Right now I suspect that we have agendas driving coverage with a net result of confusion.
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Jan 04, 04:17:00 PM:
Cuckoobananas.
To those who dismissed the Army Times poll out-of-hand - Way to dismiss the opinions of our active duty military fighting men and women. I'm sure they appreciate your vigorous defense of their right to die in Iraq.
To those who think we'll all be speaking Arabic and wearing burkas unless we send 20,000 more troops to Iraq - way to shit your pants. There are alternatives to pouring soldiers onto a foreign civil war that won't end in your children having to forsake pork products.
"The Left" is deep and wide. Cindy Sheehan represents the immediate withdrawal crowd. Her message has grown due to its popularity, not due to the tarring she's taken on right-wing bloviation networks.
Calm down. If you're going to be in the minority, you'll have to learn to offer rational arguments, not dismissive nonsensery.
By Dan Trabue, at
Thu Jan 04, 04:51:00 PM:
That Screwy is a funny guy. And clever, to boot!
By skipsailing, at
Thu Jan 04, 05:49:00 PM:
Yes, the left is deep and wide and sadly dysfunctional.
For example what's the deal with all the polls? You guys have a poll for everything. you parade these things around as if they were valid "facts" while ignoring such concepts as logical fallacy and leadership.
The pattern it seems is this: state a position then find a poll that even tangentially "supports" that position then insist that everyone everywhere accept it as "truth".
that's simply dysfunctional. I suspect that its a holdover from the focus group instead of leadership approach that seemed to work so well for cigar boy.
Yet, I was interested in both the poll and the response. I agree with those who point out that the Army Times is a private enterprise and not an official organ of the US military. I'm not dismissing the opinions of those serving, I'm simply casting doubt on yet another poll.
My curiousity piqued I wanted to see if there was contervailing data. Isn't the internet just wonderful?
Here's an address to an MNF website.
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8809&Itemid=21
The story at this website casts doubt on the validity of screwy's poll. There is an enormous difference between what people "think" and what they do. In my years of management I learned to focus on behavior and ignore underlying "attitude". You can't fire a miscreant for a bad attitude, but you can dismiss someone for poor behavior, for example.
so polls attempt to assess what people think and a more vain pursuit can scarcely be imagined. we can get close, witness our ability to market needless products for example, but we simply cannot measure attitudes as well as we can measure actions.
so the story at the above address speaks to what Marines are actually DOING. And it seems that they are re enlisting. And that they are re enlisting at a rate significantly higher than the Marines targeted.
Now how do we explain this contradiction? A few thoughts come to mind. First, screwy was, I believe, talking about the doggies and my story speaks to Marines. Is there a difference between the two groups? THEY think so. In an all voluntary service each group is in essence self selecting.
Another difference lies perhaps in the nature of screwy's poll: what exactly is the question that was asked? Who was asked it? What was the nature of the sample? When were they asked?
so while screwy attempts to provide a breezy dismissal of anyone with the sheer gall to quesition him, it seems that there is far more to the story.
It is a sad testament to the dysfunction of the left that they would revel in bad news for their own country. Here screwy is attempting to tell us that our own troops are dispirited. That can't be a good thing, if it were true, yet screwy insists that it is. how sad is that?
By skipsailing, at
Thu Jan 04, 05:52:00 PM:
There are alternatives to pouring soldiers onto a foreign civil war that won't end in your children having to forsake pork products.
Is this the return of the son of "police action"? Wasn't that a movie with Leslie Nielson? Lt Frank Drebbin and all that? your ability to defend police action was about as inept and frank drebbin in any case, but I digress.
If you have alternatives, please do share. I need a chuckle. And who knows maybe you'll guess something right!
By Dale, at
Thu Jan 04, 11:06:00 PM:
"Emanuel finally gave up trying to be heard over the chants, and retreated to a caucus room where Democrats were meeting."
Didn't the journo get the memo? That was supposed to be "redeployed to a caucus room."
By Dinah Lord, at
Fri Jan 05, 09:08:00 AM:
"Emanuel finally gave up trying to be heard over the chants, and retreated to a caucus room where Democrats were meeting."
Didn't the journo get the memo? That was supposed to be "redeployed to a caucus room."
Are you sure it didn't say 'CUT AND RUN'?
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri Jan 05, 12:08:00 PM:
skip,
Thanks for saying my name so much. It makes me feel sexy.
On the relevance of polls - you need a lot of them to claim fact. However, this President and his pro-war supporters seem pathologically incapable of calling a spade a spade, recognizing the civil war in Iraq, and noticing that we've managed to help things get worse and worse there.
I wouldn't trust George W. Bush to dig a hole in my backyard much less manage a war. He has displayed incompetence at every turn.
By skipsailing, at
Fri Jan 05, 12:35:00 PM:
All of which means that you simply have no cogent response. I'm hardly surprised screwy.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Jan 05, 12:59:00 PM:
"He has displayed incompetence at every turn."
Which year did you graduate the War College Screwy? It must have been ahead of General Abizaid and such, to be able to speak with confidence on how badly he's managed this conflict.
By , at
Sat Jan 06, 03:05:00 PM:
If these jerks realy want peace then they should keep their mouths shut and give us PEACE AND QUIET as well
