Tuesday, January 30, 2007


If you don’t believe it, read the quotes from this NY Times article and tell my why I shouldn’t expect it.

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee began laying the constitutional groundwork today for an effort to block President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq and place new limits on the conduct of the war there, perhaps forcing a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

They were joined by Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who led the panel for the last two years, in asserting that Mr. Bush cannot simply ignore Congressional opposition to his plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.

“I would respectfully suggest to the president that he is not the sole decider,” Mr. Specter said. “The decider is a joint and shared responsibility.” Mr. Specter said he considered a clash over constitutional powers to be “imminent.” The Senate next week will take up competing proposals that would express disapproval of Mr. Bush’s plan.

Specter is right in the sense that Congress has a role in going to war. They are the ones to formally declare war. They also can decide not to fund that war. Other than that, they aren’t co-deciders. The Constitution is quite clear that there is one Commander-in-Chief, not 436.

As you might expect, Russ Feingold is in the middle of this imaginary brouhaha:

Senator Russell Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who acted as chairman for the hearing, said he would soon introduce a resolution that would go much further. It would end all financing for the deployment of American military forces in Iraq after six months, other than a limited number working on counterterrorism operations or training the Iraqi army and police. In effect, it would call for all other American forces to be withdrawn by the six-month deadline. “Since the President is adamant about pursuing his failed policy in Iraq, Congress has a duty to stand up and prevent him,” Mr. Feingold said.

Sen. Feingold, bring it on. Please, please, please force the fence-straddling gutless wimps in your party to say that they’re defeatists. Please force the fence-straddling gutless wimps in your party to say that their vote to go to war was purely political. Please tell the nation that Democrats are a spineless lot who don’t give a damn about national security or defeating the terrorists. Please tell the nation that you can’t be trusted with the nation’s highest office. Please turn this nation against your party with a single piece of legislation. Please tell the nation that you’re the Disgrace of Vietnam Party.

Mr. Feingold was joined by only two other Democrats at the hearing, Senators Richard Durbin of Illinois and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, perhaps reflecting the wariness in the party’s caucus about any direct attempt to thwart the president’s strategy. Some Republicans, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have all but dared the war’s opponents to try cutting off financing, a move they believe would be seen as undermining the nation’s troops.

It’s obvious that Democrats want to raise a stink about this but they’re too gutless to actually defund the war. They know that defunding the war is political suicide. If America really was vehemently opposed to the war, Democrats would be coming out of the woodwork with legislation cutting off funding of the war. It’s that simple.

If history has taught us nothing else, it should’ve told us that Democrats are the party that votes for only those things that are inevitable. They aren’t the bold party. They’re the ultra-cautious party. That’s why this is about “sound and fury, signifying nothing.” To borrow an old cliche, when everything is said and done, more will be said than done.


Fark isn't the only one who has fun with photoshop. Check out worth1000.com
Hillary Clinton has officially hit the campaign trail, and the hypocrisy is already flowing. She says President Bush should pull all the troops out of Iraq before he leaves office...because it was a mistake to go to war. Now this statement from Hillary was in response to a question about her vote for the war in Iraq. She didn't answer the question ... she just said that Bush should get us out of there before it becomes her responsibility.

Speaking at a townhall-style meeting, The Hildabeast actually said this: "This was his decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy. We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office." His decision, huh? Funny...back in 2002 when she voted for the war in Iraq, Hillary didn't find Bush's plan all that ill-conceived. No problem, though...the media will punch her pass anyway.

But don't worry...she says she takes responsibility for her vote giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq. She's just not going to take any of the blame. Nice sidestep. And so it goes that the 2008 campaign is underway. In a little over a year and 10 months, we'll know if Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.

Let the nightmare scenarios begin.

By the way .. you might want to look at today's reading assignments for a link to Hillary singing the national anthem. I'll say this ... I wouldn't have the guts to do that in public.