March 13, 2007

Second Verse, Same as the First

If you read either Left Behind from last week or The United Left of Defeat from yesterday, then this editorial from the Washington Post today might sound very familiar:

The only constituency House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ignored in her plan for amending President Bush's supplemental war funding bill are the people of the country that U.S. troops are fighting to stabilize. The Democratic proposal doesn't attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn't hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year -- a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi government's weakness. It doesn't explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world's second-largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al-Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008; in fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave.

In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with "massive civilian casualties," as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone.

If anything, the WaPo editorial is more targeted in exposing the cynical nature of the "slow bleed" Democrats. Not only does this Executioner's Congress not care about the fate of the Iraqi people or the larger Sunni-Shia regional war that may result from their craven political acts, they also want their genocidal proposals implemented in time to benfit them politically. I know that I alluded to this, but this editorial takes them head-on in their defeatism.

I said it yesterday, and will reiterate it again today:

On a fundamental level, leftists are no longer Americans first. They nakedly place their partisan political objectives above those of the nation as a whole. Blinded by internal domestic politics they fail, perhaps purposefully, to account for how their actions vindicate the long-term strategic goals of Islamic terrorists and undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage. They rank partisan politics above national interests. They are the United Left of Defeat; their stated agenda and goals shows clearly that they view the long-term health and well-being of United States of America—and the success of the state of Iraq, and the larger War against Islamic Terrorism—as secondary issues to their own continued quest for more political power.

Their primary and overriding interest of the Left is their own political success and vindication. They have created a belief system around the thought that if the United States is successful in helping the Iraqi people emerge from this conflict as a more-or-less stable parliamentary democracy, that the war would be a victory for George Bush and the neo-conservative movement.

They are incapable of seeing it as a victory for the Iraqi people, whom they have made abundantly clear though their choices of rhetoric and proposed legislation, are secondary citizens of the world, at best. They refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a victory in Iraq as being good for the United States, the Iraqi people, or the world at large. They have chosen sides, and they do not side with the best interests of our country, or that of other free nations.

I never thought I would live to see a day where a substantial portion of the American poltical establishment placed party politics above national security.

Sadly, that day has clearly arrived, as even the national media are beginning to pickup.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at March 13, 2007 09:01 AM

Shorter Cy: Having failed to instill a representational Democracy in Iraq, we must now give the Iraqi people a voice in our Congress.

...and you're still as wrong in this post as you were in the others about which party places, "their partisan political objectives above those of the nation as a whole. Blinded by internal domestic politics they fail, perhaps purposefully, to account for how their actions vindicate the long-term strategic goals of Islamic terrorists and undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage."

As I reminded you in the last post bin Laden's goals are being furthered by the Republicans, and the Republicans alone:

“We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” bin Laden said in the transcript.

He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, “using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers.”

“We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat,” bin Laden said.

He also said al Qaeda has found it “easy for us to provoke and bait this administration.”

“All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations,” bin Laden said.

Posted by: Frederick at March 13, 2007 09:59 AM

Ms. Pelosi has also invoked that leftist incantation "for our children" as a reason to accept defeat and retreat, without once mentioning Iraqi children. What of them once we "redeploy?" I'd like to hear her direct answer (as if it were possible for her to give one) to the question, "What happens to the children of Iraq once we leave the country?"

Yes, I know the children are paying a terrible price right now, but which scenario gives them a better chance for a positive future? Completion of our mission? Or defeat? Does Ms. Pelosi care? You wouldn't know it from anything she's said so far.

Posted by: DoorHold at March 13, 2007 12:11 PM


"Bin Ladens goals are being furthered"

What, like getting 1000s of his soldiers killed in Iraq by US marines and Iraqi infantry?

Like being ousted from his one safehaven and forced underground?

Like being forced so deep into hiding/oblivion by US special forces that he hasnt been heard from in more than TWO YEARS?

Like Iranian commanders defecting to the US?

Like the arab states agreeing to allow Israeli overflights for purposes of bombing missions on Iran?

Like his top lieutenant, Al Zarqawi being killed by US bombs?

Does anyone besides me find Fredericks blind acceptance of 2 year old Bin Laden propaganda as "proof" of Al Qaedas success to be somewhat odd? (or just plain idiotic?)

Posted by: TMF at March 13, 2007 12:20 PM

By the way, if Bin Ladens 2 year old propaganda about "bankrupting" the US was correct, wouldnt unemployment be above 4.5%?

If we were bankrupt Id think we'd be more like France or Germany in the 10% range.

Posted by: TMF at March 13, 2007 12:27 PM

blind acceptance:

Iraq War costs projected at upwards of 2 Trillion dollars.

A Birth tax of $36,000 on every child that is born.

National debt load is a fiscal time bomb

As the national debt approaches a staggering $9 trillion, roughly $240 billion will be spent this year paying interest on the half that's held by public creditors (of which Japan and China are the largest). That translates to about 11 percent of projected tax revenue.

...By 2040, we could be looking at debt held by the public being 300 percent of GDP

GOP, drink up.

Posted by: Frederick at March 13, 2007 12:55 PM

Federal Deficit Down Sharply in 2007

Associated Press

"WASHINGTON — The deficit for the first five months of the budget year is down sharply from a year ago as the growth in government tax collections continues to outpace growth in spending.

The Treasury Department reported that the deficit from October through February totaled $162.2 billion, down 25.5 percent from the same period last year.

That improvement came even though the deficit in February hit $120 billion, up 0.6 percent from last February's deficit of $119.2 billion.

One factor that contributes to higher deficits in February are the refund payments the Internal Revenue Service is mailing out during the month to people who have filed early tax returns. The February 2006 imbalance was the largest monthly deficit for that year.

In the current budget year, which began on Oct. 1, the government had larger-than-expected surpluses in December and January."

But then again, you cited a left wing columnist in the SF Gate to support your economic calamity narrative, as well as Bin Ladens assessment of Al Qaedas progress as proof of same, so you wouldnt know anything about swallowing Kool Aid, would you Freddie?

Posted by: TMF at March 13, 2007 01:09 PM

I agree we carry a massive national debt load, but you'd have to be a serious ignoramus to claim that this isnt a very long standing problem.

5.4 trillion dollars in national debt, most of it spent on "paying interest" on money owed to "Britain and China"

Hey, who was President in 1998 anyhow?

Democrat Kool Aid. Tastes like Nancy Pelosis bunghole.

Posted by: TMF at March 13, 2007 01:15 PM

Let me see if I have the Frederick playbook down:

1. Cite enemy propaganda (specifically- a speech given by the ever truthful mass murderer: Osama Bin Laden) as proof of Bush's failures in the war on terror

2. Bitch about 7 trillion in national debt of which a large portion represents payment of interest under Bush, but dont bat an eyelid under Clinton when it's 5.4 trillion in which a large portion represents payment of interest

And then claim you arent "partisan"

Posted by: TMF at March 13, 2007 01:34 PM

I think you're absolutely correct that the left is not America First. However, I think it's not quite blind, selfish political opportunism. They are 'We Are The World'-firsters, where nationhood means nothing. They would like the UN to lead us. They would like borders and wars to be obsolete. They would like religious belief to be obsolete. They don't want anything incovenient to disrupt progress towards those states of being, where no one in the world has to worry about anything. All those things above have certain aspects about them that are good (as well as bad). But, a strong US vigorously defending it's and the West's position in the world they believe to be a major roadblock to their Nirvana. They refuse to understand that their are a lot more aggressive forces out their that will harsh their journey than GWB and the US. - They are, as they always have been, Totalitarianism's Useful Idiots.

Posted by: Mark at March 13, 2007 01:54 PM

Frederick, you need a basic understanding of economics. "Iraq War costs projected at upwards of 2 Trillion dollars.

A Birth tax of $36,000 on every child that is born."

First: Costs are not debt. They are paid by the full faith and CREDIT (taxes and borrowing) of the US Govt. Only the borrowed part is debt.

You are drinking the MSM/Dem's kool aid re: the massive debt. It is not massive. It is actually a relatively normal load as a percentage of the GDP. One thing they seldom tell you unthinking liberals is that we have had debt as far back as 1780. We CANNOT pay off all of our Fed debt. Too many retirement accounts would be put at greater risk. Remember the brouhaha over "Social Security Private Accounts"?

Instead of just spouting, think. Please.

Posted by: CoRev at March 13, 2007 03:11 PM

Somewhere (I apologize for not remembering where) a commenter commented that the only way to get the Dems on the right side (USA) of the war was to let them have full control of the government. Then they would defend the USA with passion and dedication--probably because they were defending their grip on power, but I am extrapolating there.

That is, of course, just another way of restating Bob's point: Dems in general (not every one, of course) care more about getting and using political power than anything else in the world. Very old news, but few ever seem to notice.

Posted by: iconoclast at March 13, 2007 03:49 PM

That translates to about 11 percent of projected tax revenue.

Not bad. I remember when debt service was closer to 20% of tax revenues

Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 13, 2007 04:54 PM

"On a fundamental level, leftists are no longer Americans first." Very well said, and I think it's key to understanding the left. The theme song of socialism is the "Internationale". Socialism is seen as a global movement, and countries should be subsumed under that. Socialism, as most French politicians will tell you, requires the defeat of the US. This is because the US is unrepentantly capitalist, and successful. Therefore, it must be destroyed.

Posted by: DemocracyRules at March 13, 2007 06:54 PM