Give Me the Money or Else I Take It Out on the Troops
No doubt about it, the Democrats were once again the timid lapdogs that we came to know and disrespect during their minority days in the Bush administration. But that doesn’t excuse Bush or the Republicans, either. I am always struck by how people hold the Democrats responsible for the war because they did not stop it–as if Bush and the Republicans are not as responsible for actually starting it, and maintaining it.
But the real thing of note is how Bush rather unabashedly held the troops hostage in the whole issue. While it did not come down to a test, Bush made it very clear: if Democrats cut off funding for the war, the troops will stay in Iraq anyway without proper funding. That was his message, however it was dressed up. Even if our soldiers start dying because the money for ammo or support dries up, Bush would hold them there and the Democrats would be to blame for the troops not having what they need to fight.
Which, of course, is a false choice; Bush could also pull out. The Dems were not saying “underfund the troops,” they were saying “get the hell out of Iraq.” And Bush essentially replied, “give me the money or I’ll start depriving the troops, they’ll start dying more, and I’ll blame you for it.” And the Democrats caved.
One has to wonder how far Bush would have gone. I mean, had the Democrats withheld funding, and if we had passed Bush’s claimed deadlines for money to run out, and the a few months later, the money actually did run out… would Bush really keep the troops in Iraq without the money needed for them to stay alive? Really? Bush would have been content to do that, just so he could use it to bludgeon the Democrats?
Not that he hasn’t underfunded the troops already. From the start, our troops were not given the right equipment. Even years into the war, they still were not given sufficient body armor, nor vehicles armored well enough to protect them well. That stands true to this day. And when they got back, they got shafted further. If that’s Bush’s idea of “supporting the troops,” then god only knows what Bush’s idea of underfunding them might be. It has virtually been a policy of this administration to not give a rat’s ass about the troops, instead using them only to achieve political goals and as human shields.
But this is what it has come down to: Bush using the troops as hostages. Give me the money, let me continue the war, or the troops get it between the eyes.
“Give me what I want or our troops die.” – George Bush, paraphrased.
In a sense, it’s the classic “wisdom of Solomon” scenario.
Two women claim to be the mother of the same baby. Soloman say’s split the baby in two. The real mother can’t stomach the thought.
The Dems care about the troops, Bush, we already know, doesn’t give a damn.
But that doesn’t rid me of my anger at Reid and Pelosi.
This is politics, and they are politicians in high office playing for high stakes. They shouldn’t be in those positions if they aren’t good at their game. They have, maybe over 70% of the population behind them, a mandate, and majorities in both houses (although the Senate majority is tenuous, there are DINOs (Democrats in Name Only) but there are also RINOs. A reasonably skilled politician ought to be able to take those chips and parlay that into painting Bush into a corner.
Not only did Reid and Pelosi fail, they failed in THE MOST HUMILIATING WAY possible, reaping scorn, ridicule and loathing from friend and foe alike. Deservingly so, I say.
The failure here sends a signal to the public that the Democrats can’t be trusted as a competant opposition party. The public has a right to be outraged and exasperated. Who do they turn to now?
It’s as if we’re consigned to incompetent thugocracy or incompentent opposition. This signals an institutional crisis. You can bet the public’s anger and repugnance at the Democrats will not necessary wash away with time.
Reid, it should be pointed out, is a Jedi knight at jujitsu tactics befitting a minority, but now he’s in the majority and jujitsu doesn’t cut it any more. Jujitsu says you use the other sides strength, size and actions against them. Jujitsu strategist are, maybe too much, aware of the weekness of offensive action. What we observed here last week is a Jujitsu strategist’s reluctance to use power, and use it skill fully.
This, was, to my eyes, the most hidious and humiliating political defeat of any I have taken notice of. It’s hard for me to take serious anything Pelosi and Reid say any more. Really rediculous. They’ve lost total credibility with me. Reid quoted Churchill’s never give in speech, but that’s right after he gave in to Bush. It’s so rediculous as to appear innept and clueless.
When (and if) the total humiliation and loss of face sinks in, no doubt Reid may well be ready to play tough. But it’s like George Castanza’s “jerk store” comment – too little and too late. And even though he might want to use it, like Castanza, there is no sign that Reid has learned how to use offensive power.
Meanwhile, Bush has got what he wanted, in spades, and if he’s smart, he’ll take his winnings and walk away from the table. The ball’s in Bush’s court and if he doesn’t serve it, Reid can’t play it back to him.
To me, in my mind, this is one of the worst possible thing that has happened to the Democratic party in 25 or thirty years. Not the worst thing. There have been many implosions. Carter’s loss in 1980, Clinton’s affairs, Florida 2000, Kerry’s limp wristed “flipflopper swiftboat” campaign in 2004. But in none of those did they have the publics mandate and then fail it.
Yes you could say, I am thoroughly, thoroughly discusted. If I could vote for another party, I most assuredly would. My own state’s Senator, whom Iwent out of the way to vote for before I left, voted twice now, to protect Bush. I wrote an email into her, and there was no response. I really don’t get it. Who votes for Bush and why? I can’t help strengthen Republican’s in consequentail elections by voting a third party, not now, but I will do what I can to help third parties emerge.