"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Senate Restarts..restarts...restarts Iraq Debate debate

According to this morning’s Washington Post:

“The Senate voted decisively today to allow debate on a resolution against the war in Iraq to go forward…”

As there were only 9 no votes to let the debate proceed, Republicans nonetheless can still do their part to prevent its passage. Regarding the vote for debate:

“Democrats nevertheless celebrated today's procedural vote as a step toward ending the role of U.S. combat troops in Iraq…”

This is cute because they can say and feel with a straight face that they are never wrong. If our engagement in Iraq were to go on another 20 years perhaps Democrats would hark back to this day, March 13, 2007 as the turning point in the “Iraq debacle.” It’s also a fine example of rhetoric that sounds and speaks impressively, but is a turd just the same.

Russell D (Dingleberry) Feingold (D-WI) said of the procedural vote to debate (meddling comment mine):

"This is binding (much like too much cheese), legislation that would bring to an end our involvement in perhaps the greatest foreign policy mistake in our country's history."

As all would not agree as to whether “Iraq?” is the “greatest foreign policy mistake in our country’s history;” might he be speaking to this “legislation” and prior attempts by Democrats at thwarting this theater of the greater war as the “foreign policy mistake,” he refers to? He could certainly always flop to that argument if necessary later.

This resolution was introduced by Harry Reid, 40 other Dems and one independent. The Post also notes that Clinton and Obama were among the 40 co-sponsors. Is this to possibly imply that perhaps Joe Lieberman is that Independent? We all know that this isn’t or wouldn’t be the case, but nice try just the same.

The resolution itself:

“notes that the circumstances referred to in the 2002 congressional authorization "have changed substantially," says U.S. troops "should not be policing a civil war" and declares that the conflict in Iraq "requires principally a political solution." Accordingly, it says, U.S. policy on Iraq "must change to emphasize the need for a political solution by Iraqi leaders" and to fight the war on terrorism more effectively.”

I agree, it does “require principally a political solution,” and as the use of a military in war is an undeniable part of diplomacy and politics, this is sound judgment. Additionally, it indicates that U.S. policy on Iraq must change in recognition of this; but will Democrats really change their policy on Iraq after so much nonsense?

  • DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls
  • Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2398551613441409616

    © blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks