September 6, 2007
CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN LEFTIST LOGIC?:
Democratically Controlled Congress Stands on the Brink of Irrelevance on Iraq (Joshua Holland, September 6, 2007, AlterNet)
[T]he administration last week threw a Hail-Mary pass, announcing that it would ask for another $50 billion for war-fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan through next Spring. That's in addition to $147 billion already requested for the two countries.There's no reason to believe the administration won't get it -- consider how many times congressional Democrats have uttered some variant of "It's time we stopped giving Bush a blank check for Iraq" as they signed a series of blank checks for Iraq. Bush has proved that he can continue moving the goalposts again and again without being called on it by the media, and Congress has shown that it will let him, even eight months after the Democratic take-over of Capitol Hill. [...]
The Democrats are reacting to this charade by conceding the battle before it begins, with Michigan's Carl Levin offering to remove a deadline from the amendment he and Jack Reed, D-R.I., co-sponsored (the deadline was already riddled with loopholes) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offering to "compromise" with Senate Republicans by dropping his already watered-down demand for a spring "withdrawal."
As Dick Durbin, the senate majority whip, told the Chicago Tribune, "When it comes to the budget, I face a dilemma that some of my colleagues do." He opposes the war, but "felt that I should always provide the resources for the troops in the field." [...]
What all this means is that unless the Democratic majority makes a dramatic turnaround and stops playing along with the White House -- a risky move, but one that's within their Constitutional authority -- they, along with the entire institution, will no longer be relevant voices in the debate over Iraq.
Why would it be more relevant if the Democrats opposed the war instead of funding it? Posted by Orrin Judd at September 6, 2007 7:45 AM
leftist logic = jumbo shrimp = head butt
I suggest we submit the phrase to the following website for inclusion on their list:
I can't explain it either and I will leave it to others to point out the "moron" connection.
Posted by: Rick T. at September 6, 2007 8:41 AMA self-described "oxymoron list" that doesn't include "fun run" is pretty useless.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 6, 2007 10:02 AMIt's perfectly logical once you understand the assumptions.
More relevant because the vast majority of the American people have always opposed the war (except when they were misled by the blatant media cheerleading for Bush's invasion.) It's an unshakable article of progressive faith that non-voters don't vote because they can't find candidates who are sufficiently left, hence WE represent the real majority rather than being some extremist splinter group. Don't listen to those voters behind the curtain; WE already know what the people really want.
Trust us.
"they, along with the entire institution, will no longer be relevant voices in the debate over Iraq."
No longer? They haven't been relevant since the original authorization vote, if even then. In wartime, even the minimal war in Iraq, Congress is just not a factor. Was Congress relevant during WW2? Not really. They were just the open end credit card. Like here.
Posted by: Bob at September 6, 2007 11:05 AMIt's perfectly logical once you understand the assumptions.
More relevant because the vast majority of the American people have always opposed the war (except when they were misled by the blatant media cheerleading for Bush's invasion.) It's an unshakable article of progressive faith that non-voters don't vote because they can't find candidates who are sufficiently left, hence WE represent the real majority rather than being some extremist splinter group. Don't listen to those voters behind the curtain; WE already know what the people really want.
Trust us.