The Constitution Club

“Not to know what has been transacted in former times is to be always a child. If no use is made of the labors of past ages, the world must remain always in the infancy of knowledge.”

-Marcus T. Cicero c. 106-43 BC, Great Roman Orator, Politician

Denver’s own Lendale White making a name for himself in Tennessee.

I saw him yesterday on Harball, and it reminded me of this clip. 

Mike Huckabee on Bill Maher:

 I think this is the one that Dems need to be most afraid of.  Hell, even I really like him.

Guess which country is backing us up in Afghanistan.

Here’s a hint: They hate deodorant and like eating frog legs.

Yes they opposed this folly in Iraq (and what sane country would send their troops THERE), but when it came to the real war on terror, they stood right beside us.

Because tonight this pacifist wants to go out and pick a fight, I post this instead.

A little punk (Maroon Five)

And a little REAL punk (Black Flag)

Sorry, but Friday nights suck for the newly single.

Why I hate the MSM. It’s not that it’s liberal (or conservative)- it’s that it is so effing dumb.

And Rosie’s in it, so I guess it is now a capital crime.

Update: And for no reason whatsoever, all I can say is “Don’t blame me, I voted for Kerry”

Mentioning this gasbag two posts in a row ought to be a federal offense punishable by Congressional subpoeneas.  Her cluelessness knows no bounds.  In one five minute segment she manages to spout about conspiracy theories on Iran and 9/11 while encouraging the uncleansed masses to look to foreign news sources if you really want to know what is going on. 

Why would ABC network executives continue to let this bombastic idiot publicize her hideously clueless views?  I feel bad for the attractive blonde who does a miserable job of taking on Rosie.  But then again, apparently for nutjobs like Rosie, you only have to spew your venomous talking points like Vesuvius.  She is devoid of anything factual.  For the blond, it would have been like trying to gather a loose fire hose connected to the hydrant.  Whatever comes to the mind must be emitted from the mouth.  “History shows fire can’t melt steel!  Tower 7!  This administration is all under suspicion!  The sailors were in their water!”

Umm, excuse me Rosie?  That steel was created with fire.  Buffoon!

Rosie O’Donnell, that shrewed “heavyweight” political analyst, called the recent Gonzales flap “Watergate exponentially increased.”  Really now?

And just what has been uncovered?  Inconsistencies.  The A.G. said this, Kyle Sampson said another thing, Monica Goodling said still yet another (invoking the Fifth must be an admission of guilt, right?).  And if only Karl Rove would testify, we could add other versions of the same event.  The idea here is that if you can get enough people to recall the same event in different ways, you have a scandal.  The Dems are apparently so morally superior that within their bureaucratic circles, they can recount the same event with stunning pliability.  The problem is that none of what anyone has said really relates to any wrongdoing.  In fact, it is now obvious that the only thing that did happen was that there was severe bureaucratic mismanagment.  A crime for which DFV, perhaps rightly, believes that Alberto Gonzales should resign.

So now we are again faced with a similar political situation that we witnessed with Scooter Libby.  Democrats continue to demonstrate that politics can and will be criminalized and they will relentlessly pursue these ends regardless of whether there has been a crime or not.

And all the while, the dazzling stupidity of people like Rosie O’Donnell insists that this is “Watergate exponentially increased.”  What a bafoon!

Wandering somewhere in “Neverland”

A good old fashioned smackdown.

For some silly reason, I trust the guy who has been there since the start of the war.

And usually it involved an adult beverage or two (or ten) but to see Ann Althouse, she of telling others about the need for morality…

DAMN!

To quote TBogg, Witness the death of Vlogging.

Wow.

WOW!

Thank god I don’t have a webcam!

“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”

-Mark Twain

“Is there any enemy of America that the left won’t side with? Or any friend that the left won’t oppose? No.”

This president has made us despised around the world. Those we once counted on as our truest friends and allies now shake their heads in shame. Our military is streched beyond belief and our treasury is empty. We are losing a war we should never have engaged in, and the war we should have fought is failing for lack of resources. The terrorists are growing stronger, and our standing in the world is growing weaker.

Yet all the while, despite our protestations, you cheered it on. And you claim WE were the ones who hated America?

Except for all the other times:

The issue here, however, is not just a political one, but a question of the constitutional roles and responsibilities of Congress and the Executive branch on a vitally important issue: the conduct of war.

Just eight years ago, Sen. McConnell (R-KY) teamed up with Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) and others on legislation to authorize the deployment of U.S. forces for airstrikes (but not ground forces) in Kosovo. McConnell also sought to arm, train and fund the Kosovo Liberation Army—even while U.S. forces were engaged in combat in the Balkans.

The Congress at that time understood the precedents, among them, those set 25 years ago when President Reagan negotiated carefully with a Republican majority Senate and a Democratic majority House over two separate sequential authorizations related to troop deployments for Lebanon. Both authorizations moved through Congress well after he had sent U.S. forces into the country. The second war powers authorization included an 18-month time limit on its duration. It was enacted two weeks before the suicide bombing in which 241 U.S. service members in Beirut were killed.

And for the record, Lieberman CAUCUSES with the Dems. He lost in the primary. His official party Is “Connecticut for Lieberman”, not quite the same thing.

Update: I just thought of a situation that could get both sides out of this. Rather than denying the troops their needed support through a veto, maybe the president could sign the bill and issue one of his “signing statements” that says:

“Dear Congress,

I know you said that this time-table is now law, but SCREW YOU! I’m The Decider, so nyah-nyah they’re staying forever!”

Or something like that. Would that be constitutionally sound in my friend’s opinion.

It is difficult for me to see how the Democrats’ latest position can be defended. Joe Lieberman calls his party’s position “sabotage” (more on Lieberman later), Mitch McConnell calls it “the surest way to guarantee defeat,” and National Review dismembers the logic of Chuck Hagel and friends limb by limb.

The crux is this: It can’t seriously be disputed that a US withdrawal would worsen the sectarian and Sunni-insurgent violence in Iraq. It used to be that John Murtha and others would argue that if we just left, peace would break out from Damascus to Tehran, but lately even they have given up on that nonsense. So if violence will spiral out of control, then why is this a good plan?

It is equally perplexing how we would be able to muster effective anti-insurgency military strikes in a post-occupation phase, which all Democrats are talking up, given the difficulty with which we can pull this off now.  With 170,000 troops in country and with a tight working relationship with the Iraqi government, we still have to pull teeth to get approval. Imagine if we had a small force holed up in the Green Zone wanting to launch a strike against some cell out in the hinterlands of Iraq? Do you think we could get approval? And would this strike be in any way successful if we had to go through all this?

This is no longer about “the Iraq War.” Nor is this Vietnam, where full warfare raged throughout. Instead, this is like any number of countries today struggling to stave off Islamist radicals, tamp down terrorism, increase freedom, and is asking for our help. Should we help them or not? Democrats want us to be “fully engaged” in N. Korea, with Iran, and almost everywhere else, none more so than in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet they argue that we should abandon and ignore Iraq.  

As far as I know, this is the first time in American history that a Congress has passed a bill with detailed instructions directed at generals regarding troop movements during a war, which is almost certainly unconstitutional. It is is surely the first time that such a bill passed while also containing $25 million for spinach growers and $75 million for peanut storage. Please wake me when the cute lil’ Democrats offer a real Iraq plan. And in the meantime, can one of the resident Democrats here please come out against this garbage?

This is a total non-story! Read the account carefully. John Weaver asked some Dems why they hadn’t asked McCain to switch parties. That’s it. Weaver never said that he thought McCain wouldswitch, and McCain himself never said anything. Weaver has been notorious in his post-ideological political outlook (like Dick Morris), and it is no secret that he and Marshall Wittmann, another top McCain adviser, are former Republicans who have been trying to push McCain to the left for years.Andre’s repeated declarations of the political demise of John McCain strike me as wishful thinking. He remains the front-runner for the GOP nomination.

“Is there any enemy of America that the left won’t side with? Or any friend that the left won’t oppose? No.”

-Law Professor Glenn Reynolds – Instapundit.com

 How to Win in Iraq, and How to Lose 

It would appear that Mr. Herman is echoeing some sentiments that we have expressed here on Conclub.

Unlike the French in Algeria, the United States is in Iraq not in order to retain a colony but to help create a free, open and liberal society in a part of the world still mired in autocracy and fanaticism. Will we stay long enough to defeat the jihadists, to engage Iraqis in the process of modern nation-building, and to ease the transition to a free society? Or will we quit before the hard work is done, leaving this vital part of the world to become an al Qaeda sanctuary, bathed in chaos, anarchy, and blood? As the polls suggest, a large constituency at home is waiting to learn the answer to this question, and so is a much larger constituency abroad. But time is running short.

“Act quickly,” Gen. Petraeus wrote in January 2006, “because every army of liberation has a half-life.” This is true not only in the field but at home. James Thurber once said that the saddest two words in the English language are “too late.” Terrible as it is to think that our surge may have come too late, it is much more terrible to think that feckless politicians, out of whatever calculation, may pull the plug before the new approach is fully tested.

Reason number 1,216 why John McCain won’t be the GOP nominee:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.

In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.

Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them.

At the end of their March 31, 2001 lunch at a Chinese restaurant in Bethesda, Md., Downey said Weaver asked why Democrats hadn’t asked McCain to switch parties.

If this is true, the guy is toast. My guess is much of his “desire” to jump ship was driven by the nasty campaign the year before, but that won’t matter in the eyes of the faithful.

Despite what I would assume is a mutual dislike of our current presumptive nominees, I really think Dave and I will be stuck with a Rudy/Hillary race because of this ridiculous idea of putting a full quarter of the delegates up for grabs the week after South Carolina.

McCain or Obama could (possibly) slip in, but it really will probably come down to nothing more name recognition and cold, hard cash. Nobody else has a realistic shot.

The days of smoke filled rooms… better or worse? I ask you.

Update: I will add, though, that if Hillary and Rudy get the nominations, and both Gore and Gilchrist each run under “third” parties as well… Well that could be very interesting.

Somehow, given the GOP choices, I think this is far more likely:

Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, is considering a run for president in 2008 representing the Constitution Party.

Gilchrist has just returned from Florida where he met with the party’s national committee.

To quote Dave: Please, please, please, please, please.

Then again, maybe you are okay with the current frontrunner.

 Gore mulling third party run in ‘08

Please, please, please, please, please……

If this happens, this may send Hillary straight over the edge. You know she’s been ready to crack since the late ’90’s…..

Actually, a smart move by Ralph Nader. For the Green Party to actually grow and have any semblance of political influence, the old man must be willing to do what Perot was unwilling to do; stand aside and pass the torch to another. Perot should have handed the reins of the Reform Party to former Gov. Lamm and Nader should pass the Green Party baton to Gore.

That even those on the other side (mine or yours) –despite how much you loathe their politics– are still people and some even have a sense of humor.

I’m MC Rove

Is anyone besides me more than a little troubled by this:

Today Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent a letter to the Director of the White House Office of Administration requesting a public explanation as to how the White House is complying with the Presidential Records Act (PRA).

Recently, emails have been released showing that top White House staff routinely have used Republican National Committee (RNC) email accounts rather than the White House account for official business. For example, in 2006 when D. Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, corresponded with White House Deputy Political Director J. Scott Jennings regarding the dismissals of eight U.S. Attorneys, Sampson wrote to Jennings at another RNC address, Sjennings@gwb43.com.

Similarly, back in 2003, Karl Rove’s then-assistant, Susan Ralston, asked now convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff to send emails to her at ralston@georgebush.com and after an email was accidentally sent to her on her White House account, Abramoff wrote “Dammit. It was sent to Susan on her rnc pager and was not supposed to go into the WH system.”

Rove himself allegedly only uses the EOP mail server 5% of the time, sending the rest of his correpondence through obviously unsecured RNC or B/C ‘04 accounts.

Besides the fact that this is probably illegal, what legitimate explanation could there be for this?

On this site, no one has criticised Bush harder from the right than I, but the continued insistence by the Left that Bush be regarded as among the all-time worst presidents is batty. Dave’s list of Bush accomplishments is impressive, and almost all of them are likely to be much more beneficial in the long term than in the near.

He did forget to mention the sharp advance in US-India relations, something that may be among the most important events to come out of this generation. This put the US and India on more or less parallel paths, and has caused shock waves in Beijing and Moscow. Don’t remind Andre that the screaming liberals opposed this epoch-defining event.

Up against this list, Andre offers that Carter gave us Camp David. Decide for yourselves how that ranks the men in history.

UPDATE:Dave and I also forgot to mention the agreement with N. Korea. This didn’t get the news attention it deserved, but it was an historic agreement, better than the Clinton deal (which was an utter fiasco), and proved, once again, that the Bush administration may be able to claim more diplomatic successes than any administration since Roosevelt. What do you think of them apples?

Will You Bomb Me  Now? Cartoon

“The only thing to do when a son of a bi*** looks cross-eyed at you is to beat the hell out of him right then and there.”

-General George S. Patton

Iran Releases Video of Captured Britons

Iran had promised British officials in talks that it would not show the sailors on television as it did with a group captured in 2004 — a senior British foreign office diplomat said earlier Wednesday, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with British government rules.

OK I can’t. It’s tacky, but I can’t help my hippie self.

And if you haven’t seen it before, the reason Black Adder has underwear on his head and straws up his nose is so that he can avoid going over the top because he is crazy.

And if you are a fan of modern TV, you will notice it is “House” who plays the role of Dave, to my pretending-to-be-insane Black Adder character.

 WWI Vet Recalls Great War

I have managed to collect a variety of WWI memorabilia including a 1918 US trench knife, a German postcard featuring soldiers in dress uniforms, and a few war medals from the UK, Germany and Italy. I also have a picture of my Grandfather’s cousin who served in the trenches in France up on the wall. An interesting era to study.

When the guns fell silent on Nov. 11, 1918, exactly 4,734,991 Americans had served in World War I. Four are known to be alive.

“I am one of the last,” says Frank Woodruff Buckles, who at 106 is among the few living links — and perhaps the healthiest — to what was known as the Great War. “I didn’t know it would be down to one to a million.”

If you have ever had to sit through the horrible thing called “interpretive dance” this will make you laugh out loud.

Then again, maybe it’s just a gay thing.

We do not know how history will treat the Bush legacy. Blair and Bush had the opportunity to go down in history as the Roosevelt and Churchill of the War on Terror. Instead they increasingly look like they will be closer to James Polk and John Major. Not failures, but not necessarily great men either.

Bush’s successes are forgotten and buried under the avalanche of bad news from Iraq. Yet the achievements under his watch are significant.  Just to name a few off the top of my head.

The Ukraine was finally pried loose from the fierce grip of the Russian Bear.

The advanced  Libyan nuclear weapons program was abandoned (in reaction to the invasion of Iraq).

The worldwide nuclear weapons black market ring operated by the Pakistani Khan was broken up. This was significant because it tied together a wide variety of countries including Libya, Iran, and N. Korea to name a few.

The terrorist regime (and haven from which the 9-11 attacks originated)  which controlled Afghanistan has been removed.

Thousands of Al-Qaeda operatives and terrorists have been captured or killed.

Since 9-11, dozens of major terrorists plots/attacks have been thwarted all over the world.

A large variety of nations have signed on to the War on Terror See my (somewhat dated) column New Alliances For A New Century for details.

The ‘Cedar Revolution’ pried Lebanon (at least temporarily) from the clutches of Syria.

Al-Qaeda allies (with US intelligence, backing, political covering and supplies) were defeated in Somalia.

I don’t define myself as some great Bush defender, but those who attempt to claim 9-11 was an inside job, or call for his impeachment, or call him a liar, or ‘worst president evah’ are woefully idiotic and are apparently barely qualified to judge American Idol, let alone understand the world in which we live and the dynamics of history and current events.

Of course, by the time those men were advocating, as it were, they were middle-aged men. And theirs were not usually wars of choice.

Our gripe is against those who are currently able to serve, but choose not to (or cheered about the Vietnam War, yet took deferment after deferment).

But if I had to pick one, it would be Franklin.

Update: I would add, who is your favorite anti-war advocate:

Jack Murtha
John Kerry
Chuck Hagel
Daniel Inouye
Charlie Rangle
Max Cleland
Patrick Murphy (the only Iraq war vet in Congress)

This is for Andre. The choices include Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln and FDR. Readers fairly point out that Woodrew Wilson and Bill Clinton should probably have been included on the list.

Who’s Your Favorite ‘Chickenhawk’?

Can you imagine someone telling Benjamin Franklin that he couldn’t advocate fighting the British because he wasn’t serving in uniform? Yet that is what the pacifist Left attempts to clumsily wield against those who support fighting Al-Qaeda operatives and Sunni extremists in Iraq.

Kennedy inspired a nation, founded the Peace Corps, and took us to the moon
Johnson gave us the Civil Rights Act
Nixon went to China
Carter gave us Camp David

What, exactly, is Bush’s “great thing”?

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream.
It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children
and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

- President Ronald Reagan

via Ace of Spades blog:

 ”The Amanda Marcotte of the New York Times”

(Selena Roberts)

Who? Well, she’s a nobody, a sports columnist you’ve never heard of.

But in the pages of the New York Times, she’s still arguing the lacrosse players should be prosecuted because of their “white skin privilege” and yadda yadda yadda.

I have to admit I do wander over to the Pandagon.net site of Marcotte fame from time to time and often go ’surfing’ from there. Quite the ride I tell you. As a white and conservative male, I have never been held responsible for so many things (and so reviled) as I have been over there. I actually find it quite entertaining at times. Eliminating the words ‘misogynist’ and ‘patriarchy’ from Ms. Marcotte’s vocabulary would severely cripple her posting ability….

 In response to Tell me again, Dave, why I am so wrong

If you quit after that link, you were never ‘in the fold’ to begin with. A world view is a preponderance and mixture of concepts, ideas, understandings, ideology and theology.

And do I really have to write a post describing the incompetence and paralysis of Carter, or review the shattered presidency of Nixon, or the avalanche of lies and quagmire politics concerning the war in Vietnam by Johnson, or the debacle that was Kennedy’s administration (Bay of Pigs comes to mind) etc. etc. And that’s just in the last fifty years. We could also talk about Grant surrounding himself with dishonest men as well as many others if you want to go back further.

Each of these men did great things, or had great aspirations, but they also failed and made mistakes at times and the historians among us understand that, and actually have the ability to put things into context and historical perspective, while not necessarily getting caught up in the emotional exagerations of the day.

 White House Spokesman’s Cancer Recurs

“Obviously, a lot of folks here in the White House worry a lot about their friend, as do Laura and I.
And so my message to Tony is, stay strong; a lot of people love you
and care for you and will pray for you.
And we’re hoping for all the best.
I’m looking forward to the day that he comes back to the White House
and briefs the press corps on the decisions that
I’m making and why I’m making them.

In the meantime, I hope our fellow citizens
offer a prayer for he and his family.”

-President George W. Bush, White House Rose Garden, March 27, 2007

Andre adds: I think Steve at the CBR had the best post today from my side of the blogosphere. Wonkette, on the other hand, lost a great deal of my respect. (And for the record, when did “Wonkette” become two dudes?)

The overture.

We really are reading from different pages.

Please tell me there is something these guys HAVEN’T politicized.

Witnesses have told congressional investigators that the chief of the General Services Administration and a deputy in Karl Rove’s political affairs office at the White House joined in a videoconference earlier this year with top GSA political appointees, who discussed ways to help Republican candidates.

With GSA Administrator Lurita Alexis Doan and up to 40 regional administrators on hand, J. Scott Jennings, the White House’s deputy director of political affairs, gave a PowerPoint presentation on Jan. 26 of polling data about the 2006 elections.

When Jennings concluded his presentation to the GSA political appointees, Doan allegedly asked them how they could “help ‘our candidates’ in the next elections,” according to a March 6 letter to Doan from Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Waxman said in the letter that one method suggested was using “targeted public events, such as the opening of federal facilities around the country.”

I really am amazed that I can find something that is truly new from this administration almost any day of the week.

Update: And if you dare, another reason why I left the fold.

(via Sully) Physical theories as women.

My fave:

Special relativity is the girl you meet at the dorm party while you’re dating electrodynamics. You make out. It’s not really cheating because it’s not like you call her back. But you have a sneaking suspicion she knows electrodynamics and told her everything.

With all of the (blogosphere) coverage today about Webb’s aide and his gun, I must admit that it was Wonkette that made me giggle uncontrolably:

We’ve known since we first laid eyes on that pulsating forehead vein that it was only a matter of time before the dude ended up in the stairway at the top of the dome firing shots at touring boy scouts. We just didn’t think it’d happen before Memorial Day.

This isn’t going to look good.

I must admit, I take an extremely perverse pleasure in watching the most incompetent administration in our nation’s history come unraveled at even the first attempt at oversight.

Worst. President. EVAH!

Update: Mmmmmmm, welcome to the club, Mr Lowry. Your tears are so salty and sweet!

But DAMN!

Methinks I touched a nerve.

Good posts by all.  Keep up the good work.  And since we have to join the army to have an opinion on military matters, Andre is no longer entitled to opine about a variety of topics including education, crime and punishment, marriage, kids, or any other assorted activities he chooses not to engage in (or is denied by society from engaging in).  Vacation is great.  DisneyWorld is everything that is right about America.  Mopey kids, tired parents, enormous crowds, and squeaky clean restrooms whenever you need to piss.  Talk to you Thursday.

It is always interesting to see the Left scream that you can’t have an opinion on the war unless you’ve joined up and are riding a Humvee around in the desert, then you can comment on it.

That is, unless you are against it. Then by all means raise your voice in song, beat your drums in the street, parade with your giant puppets and chant for the death of Bush.

That’s just it. Green Day would be appalled at you for linking the army site and urging me to sign up. The guy in the video wanted to join. He voluntarily signed on. And for that, the girl and Green Day treat him like a moral reprobate. All because she would no longer be able to gaze into his eyes and lie in the corn fields.

“How could you do this to me?”

Selfish? Maybe. Cheerleading a war that you are ready and able to fight in but choose not to? That’s the definition of selfish.

I hear there’s a “surge” going on, and they need new troops.

www.goarmy.com

Come on, if it is really the war between civilizations, doesn’t it require more than your musings on a humble blog?

At least you wouldn’t need the buzzcut.

The True Face of the Anti-War Movement

I have witnessed such “rooting for the bad guys” on many occasions, and it is almost always done not by the so-called “oppressed,” or by the “Other,” but by privileged, white, middle class people who are well educated and who, at first, appear to be thoughtful and considerate. But behind their perfect teeth, nice clothes, trendy cars, “right” schools, politically correct, “caring” sensibilities (and, of course, racially homogenous enclaves), lurks a consuming dissatisfaction with life and a self loathing that is bottomless. Their souls are shriveled, black holes of despair and cynicism, and the totalitarianism they sympathize with or romanticize or seek to appease reflects this perfectly, since totalitarianism, stripped bare, is but hope ruined by hatred. It is hope’s black hole.

In last year’s elections, the Dems ran on two things, Iraq and pork-barrel spending. The bill they passed Friday obliterates their message on both fronts.

In an apparent effort to remind people just why the Framers of the Constitution sought to give the President, and not some unwieldy group of 535men and women, the power to set foreign policy, the House set a hard date for removal of US forces. Not a near-term date, mind you, that would say We have voted to end this thing,  begin leaving now. Nor a flexible date that acknowledges the realities of the situation. No, they picked an arbitrary and seemingly random date, far enough out that they can claim they aren’t bailing on the mission, but just close enough to satisy (they hope) the radical elements who increasingly call the shots from the fringe. 

Also in the bill is massive pork barrel spending that brings more quickly the conclusion that everyone knew would come soon enough — that Democratic claims that they would rein in spending were laughable from the start. Now, for Republicans to vote against the Iraq war bill, they will also have to vote against certain spending provisions that they may support. This is the Democrats’ serious way of dealing with Iraq?!

You will recall that anytime a story emerged that the White House sought to gain public accolade for a war-related announcement, liberal sites (and some members of this blog) launched an all out attack, arguing, apparently in all sincerity, that they were just shocked and appalled. How dare he “play politics” with the lives of Americans, they would intone. Now the Democrats have done them one better, not only trying to calculate the politics of the presentation, but actually crafting the policy itself from an explicitly political standpoint. Are their liberals who will now argue that all of this adds up to a serious policy? Or even a serious way of dealing with the existing policy?

You heard it here first: The Democrats are playing a very serious gamble here, and that’s all it is — a political double-down, seperated completely from its potential implications in the real world. They will soon begin to be dismissed by serious foreign policy thinkers not only in the corridors of the US power structure, but in capitals throughout the world. And they have now, more than ever before and without the possibility of retreat, tied their political fortunes to the prospect of a clear US defeat. In light of what they did Friday, a steady decline in the violence in Iraq and the emergence of an Iraqi civil state would at this point be devestating to the Democrats’ near and far term political outlook.

Wonder who they’re rooting for.