Let's Run With That Analogy
Via Andrew Sullivan, I came across this gem of a post by Mark Levin at The Corner:
So, the Iraqi government reportedly hasn't met any of its targets . Has the Democrat Congress met any of its targets?That's the entirety of the post. No doubt an attempt at a snappy one liner. But let's run with that analogy. Why hasn't the Democratic Congress been able to accomplish its goals this term? The primary culprits are obstructionist Republicans in the Senate and a stubborn president. So if the Democrats are the Iraqi government, what does that make the Senate Republicans and the President? Al Qaeda? Or maybe they're what Donald Rumsfeld once referred to as "pockets of dead-enders."
15 Comments:
"Pockets of Dead-Enders"
That about covers it. Best analogy I've heard in quite a while, actually.
More like the Sadrist Movement, methinks.
hahaha - best laugh all day
This is typical liberal obtuseness. At this stage of the Iraq surge, the important political groundwork is occurring at the local level with municipal/tribal/provincial governments. Enormous progress is being made there as evidenced by what is occurring in Anbar and Diyala provinces. Political progress at the Iraqi federal level is sure to follow at a later stage.
The rules of the Senate are outdated. The House rules are representative of the people. Majority should rule,not the 'cooling affect' of the Senate. Seldom is there a strict party line vote in the house,especially with the new blue dogs.
So to my opinion of why the Dems haven't been able to deliver. It is the obstructionist nature of 'minority' protection rules of the Senate. I realize this is a two edged argument depending on your side of the argument and whether you are a majority or a minority senator. Does this system really represent the people?
It's my belief that the founding fathers would consider a 'do over' if they knew then what we know now.
I believe they would put some limitations on both the House and Senate, while granting clearer oversight rules to each branch of government to make them truly co-equal.
to anonymous @ 6:50
Anbar provinces recent decrease in violence is the result of local tribal leaders temporarily siding with the Americans because they hate us just a little less than they do AQ. Make no mistake, it is temporary.
Diyala comes from the U.S. arming the same people who were trying to kill Americans in the first place. You know the old axiom, the enemy of my enemy. This too is temporary.
I search and search for good news out of Iraq.The sad reality is we take 1 step forward and get shoved back 3.
We are digging a fresh water well in the basement of an outhouse.You might get some water, but it won't be very good for you in the long run.
Anonymous, if anyone is obtuse I believe that distinction would go to you. I continue to be amazed at conservative, pro Bush supporters who continue to proclaim one version of reality while another, totally opposite reality exists. Somehow you apparently believe if you never admit there is a problem then it follows, there indeed is no problem. Well, Iraq is in civil war. Your claim of improvement in Iraq is fiction.
This president's Iraq policy has been and continues to be an utter disaster. We will leave Iraq with our tails between our legs just as we did in Viet Nam. The fact is this president does not have the courage to leave in defeat. He prefers to leave that unpleasant task to the next Democratic president to do. Then Bush will try to turn reality on its head again by claiming he was winning the war and withdrawal was unnecessary. The man truly is beneath contempt.
Cheney started this whole missing the target thing too.
Actually they have met many of their targets...there are no more Atty Gen USA appointments are there? And, they are working on other targets but in the interim are not employing our children to take IED blasts along the Mall. While you wait on the Democrats you can rest assured that you will not be blown up but a suicide bomber in Walgreen's or have your headless body found floating in the Mississippi or rotting on Elm Street. We could go on with this all day...what a silly remark that was.
To Anonymous @ 8:33 pm.
Please, let's try to stay on point and focused. You seem to be rambling here. Get a grip on it. I fail to see the relevance of Attorneys General to Iraq. Or how we got to my death in Walgreens, the Mississippi River and Elm Street. I believe we were discussing Iraq and how wonderfully things were going there according to Bush. You know, it really is difficult to debate an issue with some conservatives because they always want to change the subject in midstream when they begin to realize they are out of their depth.
They just announced that Iraq met none of their assigned goals. Picking one or two isolated locations within Iraq means very little on a macro level relative to the state of affairs for the entire country. But Bush is relegated to grasping at any sliver of good news in an attempt to maintain his position that things are going just marvelously in Iraq.
And please don't bore me with Bush's contention that he had to engage the terrorists in Iraq before they came to the US. There were no terrorists in Iraq until Bush's invasion destabilized the entire country, not to mention the entire middle east. Do you really believe we are safe from terrorist attack in the US because Bush is in charge at the moment? Unfortunately, an attack could come at any time in this country.
holy shit, can you believe the balls on that guy? I thought they had raised the minimum wage, among other things. We need to force more votes on Iraq, namely the Webb amendment so the troops can have as much time at home as "in the field". Support the troops, my ass!
As near as I can tell, the pro-Bush folks here are willing for the US to continue the military struggle in Iraq for as long as it takes for Iraq to form a democratic government.
Even if it takes 20 years. And costs us 12 billion a month.
If this is not a fair representation of your views, please tell us what it would take for you to support ending our military presence in Iraq.
Let's run with that analogy, indeed.
I saw a funny post (or, at least I thought it was funny) on this post that continues the logic of the 'analogy' put forth by Levin:
If 1) The Iraqi Government hasn't met any of its targets, due to the terrorists, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia,
then,
2) The Democrat(ic, adjective, look it up, silly attempter at snark) Congress hasn't met any of its targets, due to...
Yes, the Republicans are terrorists.
"Enormous progress is being made there as evidenced by what is occurring in Anbar and Diyala provinces. Political progress at the Iraqi federal level is sure to follow at a later stage."
Exhibit A as to why this person comments anonymously.
It would be progress at the Iraqi federal level if officeholders would do something besides attend conferences abroad, hole up in the Green Zone where they dodge tough decisions, squabble, dodge tough issues, collect their generous pay, squabble some more, dodge tough issues some more, and go on lengthy vacations.
So far, there's no sign those people have any willingness, much less ability, to do any more or any better than this.
If you're expecting visionary leadership and profiles in courage, you're delusional.
"pockets of dead-enders." Oooo, I like that.
Conservatives, pockets of dead-enders.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home