Dems without a plan

  • This all came and went so fast I for­got to even men­tion it. Story from Sat­ur­day: The House last night over­whelm­ingly voted down a res­o­lu­tion call­ing for imme­di­ate with­drawal from Iraq.

    Just to be very clear:

    1. On Thurs­day, Demo­c­rat Rep. John P. Murtha pro­posed that we pull out of Iraq over the next six months.
    2. On Fri­day, two House Repub­li­cans put a res­o­lu­tion on the floor for a vote urg­ing “that the deploy­ment of United States forces in Iraq be ter­mi­nated immediately.”
    3. On Fri­day night it got voted down 403–3.
    4. On Sat­ur­day, ” Democ­rats were furi­ous,” accord­ing to the Wash­ing­ton Times.

    Why were they furi­ous? They had a chance to do what they’ve been talk­ing about, and they could have done it in less time than Murtha had pro­posed. If they had voted to get us out imme­di­ately, they’d be big heroes with the Shee­han and Daily Kos crowd. If it’s a good idea and Murtha’s just a patriot and a genius for say­ing it, why wait? If we really don’t have any enemy and we’re only hurt­ing the Iraqi peo­ple by our con­tin­ued pres­ence, what’s the point in a delay? The sooner the bet­ter, right? It’ll save lives and bring fam­i­lies together, and that’s what Democ­rats care about and Repub­li­cans don’t, right?

    Was it a Repub­li­can ploy? You betcha. But who cares? The Democ­rats could have called their bluff and changed the course of the coun­try. They had a chance to tell their base and all Amer­ica that they weren’t just blow­ing smoke, that they actu­ally meant every word. They could have called the GOP’s bluff and voted to a man against con­tin­ued war­fare. But that isn’t what happened.

    So what did hap­pen? Well, as Hugh Hewitt puts it:

    Many Democ­rats were emo­tion­ally undone by the exer­cise of hav­ing to con­front their own rhetoric, and the anti-war left must be stunned this morn­ing: Only three votes? All that work? All those marches? All those posts at the fever swamp bul­letin board? For three votes?


    Related posts:

    1. Bush’s great speech
    2. Cal­i­for­nia reactionaries
    3. The canoe-headed one strikes back
    4. Blog round-up
    5. Bush nom­i­nated … who now?

    November 21st, 2005 | Grace | 4 Comments |

4 Responses and Counting...

  • The Par­son 11.21.2005

    One fun­da­men­tal prob­lem I have with the Asses right now is that their rhetoric and their vot­ing do not match up. I cer­tainly don’t have any issue with some­one who believes dif­fer­ently and has the integrity to act on those con­vic­tions; how­ever, vot­ing one way in cham­bers and pon­tif­i­cat­ing another way in front of a micro­phone is sim­ply disin­ge­nous and not wor­thy of con­tin­ued pub­lic service.

  • jean

    You’re right. It came and went very fast, and almost with­out com­ment in the MSM.

  • Grace

    Par­son:
    It amazes me that they don’t get called on it more … but the insane por­tion of their con­stituency appar­ently doesn’t notice or doesn’t mind. And the MSM is only too happy to under­re­port their blun­ders and hypocrisy. In short, if you don’t want to see it, I sup­pose you don’t have to. Both­ers the heck out of me, though.

  • Grace

    Jean,
    Yep. I’m not sure I heard any­thing about it at all out­side of “alter­na­tive media.”

Leave a Reply

* Name, Email, and Comment are Required